£5 

£5r 

CL 

.■^r 

.5 

/5f 

1c 

3 

« 

J2 

*.„., 

IE 

~^ 

»-i 

CL 

#w 

*£> 

fc 

o 

^ 

5 

fc 

0) 

o 

c 

t* 

o 

bJ) 

c\ 

*■* 

Eh 

<: 

£ 

it? 

O 

^T 

fe 

E 

.£) 

«a» 

M 

«j 

*v» 

0*. 

« 

CO 

& 

-*-* 
^ 

PM 

O 

_Q 

S 

& 

-o 

^ 

\ 

C 

% 

t 

Si 

^ 

CL 

1" 

S 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/lecturesoninfantOOwod 


LECTURES 


ON 


INFANT   BAPTISM. 


BY  LEONARD  WOODS,  D.  D. 

Abbot  Professor  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Theol.  Seminary,  Andover, 


SECOND  EDITION. 


ANDOVER: 

PUBLISHED  AND  FOR  SALE  BY  MARK  NEWMAN. 

Flagg  &  Gould printers. 

1829. 


DISTRICT  OP  MASSACHUSETTS,  to  wit : 

District  Clerk's  Office. 
Be  it  remembered,  that  on  the  23d  day  of  March  A.  D.  1828,  and  in  the  fifty 
second  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Mark  Newman, 
of  the  said  district,  has  deposited  in  this  Office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof 
he  claims  as  Proprietor,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit  i  "  Lectures  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism. By  L.  Woods,  D.  D.  Abbot  Professor  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Theolo- 
gical Seminary,  Andover."  In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  entitled,  "An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  copies 
of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  ot  such  copies,  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned :"  and  also  to  an  act  entitled, ''  An  act  supplementary  to 
an  act,  entitled,  An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of 
maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  design- 
ing, engraving  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints." 

JOHN  W    DA  VIS  \  Clerk  of  the  District 


PREFACE 


TO   THE   FIRST  EDITION. 


The  following  Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism  make 
a  part  of  a  regular  course  of  Lectures,  which  the  Laws 
of  this  Institution  require  in  the  department  of  Chris- 
tian Theology.  The  publication  of  them  was  request- 
ed, about  two  years  ago,  by  those  theological  students, 
to  whom  they  were  first  delivered  ;  and  the  same  re- 
quest has  been  made  by  many  ministers  and  students 
since.  The  reader  will  perceive,  that  the  doctrine  of 
Infant  Baptism  is  a  doctrine  which  I  very  seriously  be- 
lieve, and  which  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  earnestly  to 
maintain.  He  will  perceive  too,  that  the  doctrine  is 
dear  to  my  heart,  and  is  associated  in  my  contempla- 
tions with  the  most  sacred  truths  of  religion,  and  the 
most  precious  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

My  manner  of  treating  this  subject  is  not  the  result 
of  haste,  but  of  repeated  and  long-continued  investiga- 
tion. It  has  been  my  object,  as  far  as  possible,  to  give 
simplicity  and  clearness  to  the  discussion,  and  to  avoid 
all  approaches  to  the  heat  and  asperity,  with  which  the 
controversy  respecting  Baptism  has  often  been  con- 
ducted. I  am  persuaded  that  those  whose  opinions  I 
here  oppose,  and  who  constitute  a  very  large  and  res- 
pectable denomination  of  Christians,  will  never  suspect 
me  of  being  deficient  in  affection  for  them,  or  in  read- 
iness to  do  what  I  can  to  promote  their  welfare.  For 
many  years  in  the  earlier  part  of  my  life,  I  had  a  de- 
cided prepossession  in  favor  of  their  peculiar  sentiments 
on  the  subject  of  Baptism  ;  and  they  have  a  right  to 


VI  PREFACE. 

inquire  for  the  reasons  of  my  present  belief.  I  here 
frankly  give  them  my  reasons.  In  the  following  Lec- 
tures they  will  find  the  principal  considerations,  which 
satisfy  my  own  mind  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  And 
they  will  see,  that  I  have  not  contented  myself  with 
barely  stating  arguments,  but  have  endeavoured,  in  dif- 
ferent ways,  to  illustrate  the  propriety  and  conclusive- 
ness of  the  mode  of  reasoning  which  I  have  adopted, 
and  to  show  that  it  rests  on  principles  generally  admit- 
ted in  other  cases,  and  that  it  is  liable  to  no  just  excep- 
tions. If  I  have,  in  different  parts  of  these  Lectures, 
touched  repeatedly  upon  the  same  general  arguments, 
and  the  same  modes  of  illustration  ;  I  hope  the  nature 
of  the  subject  will  suggest  to  the  mind  of  the  reader  a 
satisfactory  apology. 

If  any  of  those,  who  dissent  from  me,  shall  think 
proper  to  animadvert  upon  what  I  have  written  ;  I 
wish  them  to  do  it  in  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  without 
any  expectation  that  I  shall  make  a  reply.  Neither 
the  duties  of  my  office,  nor  my  views  of  what  the  wel- 
fare of  Christ's  kingdom  requires,  would  permit  me  to 
pursue  this  subject  in  a  protracted  controversy. 

I  have  only  to  add,  dial  in  the  discussion  of  this 
subject,  it  has  been  my  serious  endeavour  to  do  what 
the  God  of  love  would  approve.  I  have  charged  my- 
self to  remember,  that  the  blessed  Saviour  looks,  with 
equal  and  unchanging  love,  upon  all  his  true  followers, 
of  whatever  name  ;  and  that  it  must  be  far  more  pleas- 
ing to  him,  to  see  them  united  in  affection,  and  labor- 
ing diligently  to  spread  his  gospel,  and  to  prepare 
themselves  and  others  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  than 
to  see  them  contending  about  an  external  rite. 

LEONARD  WOODS. 

Theological  Seminary,  Andover, 
April,  23, 1628. 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  SECOND   EDITION. 


The  favorable  reception  which  the  Christian 
Community  have  given  to  this  publication,  has  made  it 
necessary  to  print  a  second  edition  much  sooner  than 
I  expected,  and  so  has  rendered  it  impossible  for  me, 
as  my  other  duties  are,  to  do  all  that  I  intended  in  re- 
vising arrd  improving  the  Lectures.  I  have,  however, 
added  fifty  pages  in  the  whole. 

It  has  been  and  is  my  fixed  purpose,  to  avoid  any 
direct,  and  especially  a  protracted  controversy  with  my 
Baptist  Brethren  ; — not  indeed  because  I  am  in  doubt 
respecting  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  which  I  have  ad- 
vocated, or  the  strength  of  the  arguments  on  which  it 
rests ;  but  because  I  fear  the  consequences  of  such 
controversy  on  the  cause  of  practical  piety,  and  on  the 
general  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  because  I 
have  a  full  persuasion,  that  the  short  remainder  of  my 
life  ought  to  be  devoted  to  other  purposes.  I  wish, 
however,  to  express  my  particular  respect  for  those, 
who  have  made  remarks  on  my  Lectures  ;  particularly 
for  those  who  wrote  the  Letters  of  David  and  John, 
and  for  the  Author  of  the  Numbers  in  the  Christian 
Watchman,  by  Senex.  Both  these  publications  were 
kindly  forwarded  to  me.  The  pamphlet  containing 
the  Letters  abovementioned,  which  exhibits  very  res- 
pectable talents,  as  well  as  candid  and  fraternal  feel- 
ings, was  rendered  still  more  valuable  to  me  by  a  pri- 
vate and  affectionate  letter  which  accompanied  it,  from 
one  of  the  Authors. 

To  the  reasoning  contained  in  the  publications 
abovenamed,  1  decline  any  formal  answer,  in  conformi- 


VI  PREFACE. 

ty  with  my  previous  and  uniform  resolution.  But  it 
will  not  be  difficult  for  men  accustomed  to  controver- 
sy, to  see,  that  my  silence  in  this  case  must  be  a  mat- 
ter of  some  self  denial. 

I  take  pleasure  in  acknowledging,  that  the  stric- 
tures of  my  Baptist  Brethren  have  been  of  real  use  to 
me,  and  have  led  me  to  correct  some  mistakes,  to  give 
to  some  of  my  expressions  and  arguments  a  more  un- 
exceptionable form,  and  to  establish  my  positions  by 
some  new  considerations.  Had  I  more  time  to  devote 
to  the  subject,  I  should  be  able  to  derive  more  benefit 
still  from  the  remarks  of  my  opponents. 

As  many  things  have  been  affirmed,  and  that  very 
confidently,  by  Baptist  writers,  against  the  argument 
which  Ecclesiastical  History  affords  in  favor  of  Infant 
Baptism ;  I  have  thought  that  Christian  propriety  and 
duty  required  me  to  give  the  subject  a  new  examina- 
tion. And  in  this  examination,  I  have  requested  the 
aid  of  my  beloved  Colleague,  the  Rev.  Professor 
Stuart,  who,  as  the  public  weii  know,  is  very  familiar 
with  this  kind  of  investigation,  and  who  has  been  con- 
sidered, and  very  justly  too;  as  entertaining  feelings  of 
great  candor  and  kindness  towards  Christians  of  the 
Baptist  denomination.  In  compliance  with  my  re- 
quest, he  has  given  particular  attention  to  the  subject, 
and  has  carefully  examined  those  passages  in  the  early 
Christian  Fathers,  on  which  the  historical  argument  for 
Infant  Baptism  rests,  together  with  the  writings  of  Wall, 
Gale,  Robinson,  and  others  ;  and  has  allowed  me  the 
privilege  of  making  what  use  I  please  of  his  notes. 
The  result  of  his  examination  is,  an  increased  and  full 
conviction,  that  Ecclesiastical  History  affords  a  con- 
clusive argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  Those 
who  read  these  Lectures  will  not  need  to  be  told,  that 
my  own  examination  has  brought  me  to  a  similar  re- 
sult. 

L,.  W. 

Theological  Seminary,  Andover, 
Aug.  20,  18J29. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

Page. 
Four  directions  to  theological  students  respecting  the  manner 
of  treating  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism. — Preparatory  con- 
siderations as  to  the  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  necessary. 
— The  want  of  an  express  divine  precept  or  declaration  no 
valid  objection. — This  shown  in  regard  to  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, female  communion,  and  the  authority  of  some  of  the 
sacred  writings 9 — 22 

LECTURE  II. 

Reasoning  of  the  former  Lecture  confirmed  by  particular  con- 
siderations in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  1.  Its  suitableness  to 
the  relation  of  parents  and  children.  2.  This  relation  had 
been  marked  by  a  religious  rite  through  the  Patriarchal  and 
Mosaic  dispensation. — That  rite  respected  spiritual  blessings. 
— Objection  considered 23 — 36 

LECTURE  III. 

The  Christian  religion  founded  on  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures. We  cannot  conclude  that  Christ  did  not  give  specific 
instructions  on  any  subject  from  the  fact  that  such  instruc- 
tions are  not  recorded. — The  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment imply  that  the  children  of  believers  are  to  be  baptized. 
Rule  of  interpretation ;  viz.  we  must  put  ourselves  as  far  as 
may  be,  in  the  place  of  those  who  gave,  and  of  those  who  re- 
ceived instruction.  Circumstances  of  those  to  whom  Christ 
gave  the  commission  to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations. 
How  they  must  have  understood  this  commission.  Proselyte 
Baptism. — General  representation  of  Scripture  and  course 
of  providence 37 — 52 

LECTURE  IV. 

The  argument  from  the  circumstances  of  the  Apostles  reviewed, 
and  shown  to  be  conclusive. — Mode  of  understanding  a  char- 
ter.— Did  Christ  give  any  previous  instruction  which  could 
have  shown  the  Apostles  in  what  manner  they  were  to  under- 
stand their  commission,  or  how  they  were  to  regard  chil- 
dren ?— Matt.  19:  13, 14  particularly  considered       '    .        53—77 


mi  CONTENTS- 


LECTURE  V. 


Whether  there  was  any  thing  in  the  conduct  of  the  Apostles,  or 
any  declaration  in  their  writings,  to  aid  us  in  determining 
how  they  understood  their  commission. — Household  Bap- 
tism.—1  Cor.  7:  14 78—100 

LECTURE  VI. 

The  argument  recapitulated.  Three  additional  considerations ; 
— precepts  requiring  the  education  of  children  ; — silence  of 
the  New  Testament  respecting  Infant  Baptism ; — and  the 
feelings  of  parents. — Proof  from  Ecclesiastical  History  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  practised  by  the  early  Christians  .    100 — 141 

LECTURE  VII. 

Baptism  a  substitute  for  circumcision. — Circumcision  not  ap- 
plied to  females  ; — applied  to  servants. — Seal  of  the  cove- 
nant.— Difficulty  arising  from  the  difference  between  the  for- 
mer and  the  present  economy,  and  from  the  requisition  of 
faith. — Import  of  Infant  Baptism. — Utility. — Standing  of  bap- 
tized children. — Duties  of  parents  and  the  church      .      141 — 176 

LECTURE  VIII. 

MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Introductory  remarks. — Two  propositions.  1.  It  cannot  be  cer- 
tainly determined  from  the  New  Testament  that  immersion 
is  the  only  proper  mode.  2.  Christians  should  not  consider 
the  mode  of  Baptism  of  essential  consequence  .        176 — 205 

Appendix 207—222 


LECTURE  I. 


Four  directions  to  theological  students  respecting  the  manner  of  treating  the  sub 
jcct  of  Infant  Baptism. — Preparatory  considerations  as  to  the  kind  and  degree 
of  evidence  necessary. — The  want  of  an  express  divine  precept  or  declaration  no 
valid  objection. — This  shown  in  regard  to  the  Christian  Sabbath,  female  com- 
munion, and  the  authority  of  some  of  the  sacred  writings. 

The  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  long-continued  controversy  in  the  Christian  world, 
and  has  given  rise  to  more  contention  and  asperity  among 
the  followers  of  Christ,  than  almost  any  other  subject.  It 
has  been  the  occasion  of  separating  into  different  com- 
munions, those  who  have  been  united  in  their  belief  on 
all  other  subjects,  and  animated  by  the  same  spirit  of  love 
to  Christ  and  his  cause.  It  is  in  consequence  of  these 
circumstances,  that  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism  has  pro- 
duced a  warmth  of  feeling  and  discussion,  so  far  beyond 
all  just  proportions.  But  I  trust  the  time  has  arrived, 
when  this  subject  can  be  treated  in  another  manner,  and 
when  those  who  differ  in  opinion  respecting  it,  will  cher- 
ish feelings  of  candor  and  forbearance  towards  one  anoth- 
er. My  earnest  desire  is  to  promote  such  feelings  j  being 
perfectly  persuaded,  that  it  is  the  will  of  Him  whom  all 
Christians  love  and  adore,  that  those  who  practise  Infant 
Baptism,  and  those  who  do  not,  should  love  one  another 
with  a  pure  heart  fervently,  and  diligently  cooperate  for 
the  advancement  of  their  common  cause. 

As  you,  my  young  brethren,  for  whom  these  Lectures, 
are  specially  intended,  will  be  called  to  act  a  part  not  only  in 
2 


10 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


private,  but  in  public,  in  regard  to  this  subject ;  I  shall 
suggest  a  few  precautions  and  directions,  for  the  purpose 
of  rendering  your  influence  more  extensively  useful  to  the 
cause  of  truth,  and  the  cause  of  love. 

First.  Take  care  not  to  magnify  the  subject  beyond 
its  real  importance. 

The  subject  ought  not  indeed  to  be  underrated,  or 
treated  as  a  trifle.  It  is  no  trifle.  It  obviously  possesses 
a  high  degree  of  importance,  and  deserves  to  be  main- 
tained with  firmness  and  zeal.  But  after  all  we  must 
remember,  it  is  an  outward  rite,  and  does  not  belong  to 
the  essential  articles  of  the  Christian  religion.  If  men 
are  born  of  the  Spirit ;  if  they  love  and  obey  the  Saviour, 
and  are  prepared  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  the  great 
object  for  which  Christ  died,  and  for  which  we  ought  to 
labor,  is  obtained.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  subject  of 
Baptism  cannot  be  regarded  as  bearing  any  comparison, 
in  point  of  importance,  with  the  conversion  and  salvation 
of  sinners.  And  whatever  discussion  we  may  think  it 
our  duty  to  undertake,  and  with  whatever  earnestness  we 
may  labor  to  bring  men  to  receive  what  we  sincerely  be- 
lieve to  be  a  divine  institution ;  we  ought  still  to  consider 
their  eternal  salvation  as  infinitely  more  important,  than 
their  receiving  any  particular  rite.  And  if  they  show  by 
their  conduct,  that  they  are  friends  to  Christ  and  heirs  of 
his  kingdom  ;  we  should  cordially  thank  God,  and  rejoice, 
how  widely  soever  they  may  differ  from  us  in  regard  to 
such  a  subject  as  this. 

Second.  Consider  that  men,  whose  Christian  charac- 
ter entitles  them  to  our  affection  and  confdtncr,  may  be 
led  to  a  different  conclusion  from  us  in  regard  to  this 
rite. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  precepts  of  Christ,  or 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  11 

his  apostles,  to  those  who  enjoyed  their  personal  instruc- 
tions;  it  is  plain,  that  there  is  no  express  precept  respect- 
ing Infant  Baptism  in  our  sacred  writings.  The  proof, 
then,  that  Infant  Baptism  is  a  divine  institution,  must  be 
made  out  in  another  way.  And  that  other  way,  though 
perfectly  satisfactory  to  us,  may  not  be  so  to  those  who 
have  been  placed  in  different  circumstances  from  us,  and 
have  formed  different  habits  of  thinking.  The  circum- 
stances of  their  birth  and  education  may  have  led  them, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  to  entertain  different  views  on  this 
subject ;  and  those  views  may  have  been  closely  associat- 
ed with  the  earliest  and  deepest  impressions  of  divine 
truth  on  their  minds,  and  with  their  most  spiritual  exerci- 
ses and  their  purest  enjoyments.  Thus,  their  differing 
from  us  may  really  have  been  owing  to  the  influence  which 
circumstances  have  had  upon  the  most  amiable  and  pi- 
ous sensibilities  of  their  hearts.  Had  any  of  us  been  plac- 
ed in  the  same  circumstances,  we  should  probably  have 
adopted  the  same  views. 

Others,  who  come  to  the  examination  of  this  subject 
without  the  influence  of  such  predisposing  causes  in  ear- 
ly life,  may  unfortunately  entertain  such  mistaken  views 
of  the  kind  or  degree  of  evidence  which  is  necessary  to 
support  a  positive  institution,  that,  with  those  mistaken 
views,  the  very  uprightness  of  their  hearts,  and  their  de- 
sire to  please  God,  may  so  operate  as  to  prevent  them 
from  acceding  to  the  rite  of  Infant  Baptism. 

Let  us  duly  regard  such  considerations  as  these  ;  and, 
instead  of  stigmatizing  those  Christians  who  reject  Infant 
Baptism,  or  charging  them  with  wrong  motives,  let  us 
cherish  towards  them  the  sincerest  candor  and  kindness. 
It  is  no  difficult  thing  to  account  for  tiieir  peculiar  views 
from  their  peculiar  circumstances,  and  from  that  ire- 


12  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

fection  of  the  human  mind  which  is  common  to  them  and 
to  us,  without  any  impeachment  of  their  character.  Why 
then  should  we  not  entertain  the  same  sentiments  of  love 
and  confidence  towards  them,  and  the  same  desire  for 
their  improvement  and  happiness,  as  if  they  belonged  to 
the  same  denomination  with  ourselves  ? 

Third.  Never  introduce  this  subject  in  the  way  of  con- 
troversy, except  when  a  pure  regard  to  the  interests  of 
Christ's  kingdom  requires  it. 

Undoubtedly  a  regard  to  the  high  and  sacred  inter- 
ests of  religion  will  lead  you,  at  proper  times,  to  exhibit 
and  defend  what  you  honestly  believe  to  be  scriptural 
views  on  this  subject,  and  to  do  it  with  seriousness  and 
zeal.  But  when  this  is  to  be  done,  it  will  be  important, 
generally,  that  you  enter  upon  it  with  particular  prepara- 
tion, and  pursue  it  in  a  regular  discourse,  instead  of  re- 
marking upon  it  in  a  hasty  or  cursory  manner.  The  prac- 
tice of  introducing  such  a  subject,  or  even  of  alluding  to 
it,  from  day  to  day,  and  on  all  occasions,  betrays  an  im- 
proper excitement  of  feeling,  and  is  likely  to  promote  the 
same  in  others.  Let  this  subject  therefore  be  brought 
forward  only  on  occasions,  when  there  is  an  obvious  and 
special  reason  for  doing  it ;  and  then  let  it  be  presented  in 
connexion  with  the  weighty  truths  of  religion,  and  treat- 
ed with  great  moderation  and  seriousness.  Thus  you 
will  show  that  it  is  a  matter  of  conscience,  not  of  passion. 

Fourth.  Treat  those  tvho  differ  from  you  in  regard 
to  Infant  Baptism,  with  uniform  kindness. 

Study  to  do  them  good.  Exercise  towards  them  not 
only  common  candor  and  good-will,  but  a  generous  friend- 
ship ;  and  exhibit  this  friendship  in  substantial  acts.  In 
this  way  you  may  hope  to  produce  candor  and  kindness 
in  them,  and  to  prepare  them  to  join  their  efforts  with 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  13 

yours  in  promoting  those  common  interests  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  which  are  immeasurably  more  important,  than 
the  peculiar  interests  either  of  their  denomination,  or  of 
yours.  And  should  you  find  that  the  object  of  your  wish- 
es is  not  at  once  obtained,  and  that  any  of  those,  whom 
you  labor  to  conciliate,  and  whose  welfare  you  aim  to  pro- 
mote, choose,  after  all,  to  stand  aloof,  and  to  exhibit  the  spirit 
of  party  zeal  and  animosity  ; — and  should  they  sometimes 
go  farther,  and  speak  of  those  arguments, which  you  consider 
to  be  strong  and  decisive,  as  flimsy  and  contemptible,  and 
attempt,  by  various  means,  to  lower  your  reputation  and 
to  hinder  your  success  ;  still  persevere  in  the  exercise  of 
forbearance  and  kindness  towards  them,  and  even  of 
Christian  magnanimity, — remembering  that,  whatever  you 
may  suffer  for  the  present,  such  conduct  will  have  a  most 
happy  effect  upon  your  own  mind, — will  promote  the  best 
interests  of  Christ's  Church,  and  secure  the  gracious  ap- 
probation of  your  Father  in  heaven  : — remembering  too, 
that  the  opposite  course,  that  is,  the  exercise  of  unkind- 
ness  and  severity  towards  those  Christians  who  differ  from 
ycu,  will  injure  their  spiritual  interests,  and  your  own, 
and  will  tend  to  perpetuate  all  the  evils  of  division  and 
strife. 

Having  made  these  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  spirit 
of  mind  with  which  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism  should 
be  discussed,  and  the  manner  in  which  we  should  con- 
duct ourselves  towards  those  who  differ  from  us,  I  shall 
call  your  attention  to  considerations  relating  more  direct- 
ly to  the  subject  itself. 

As  a  preparation  for  a  profitable   discussion,  it  is  of 
special  consequence   that   you  should  free   your   minds 
from  all  mistaken  apprehensions,  as  to  the  kind  and  de- 
gree of  evidence  which  is  to  be  considered  necessary.     I 
2* 


14  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

introduce  this  subject  here,  because  it  relates  to  the  mode 
of  reasoning  which  is  to  be  pursued,  and  it  is  obviously 
best,  as  far  as  may  be,  to  settle  our  minds  on  this  point  at 
the  outset. 

Different  conceptions  respecting  the  proper  mode  of 
reasoning  are  evidently  the  principal  causes  of  the  differ- 
ence which  exists  among  men  in  regard  to  the  question 
at  issue.  If  in  regard  to  any  position,  we  look  for  evi- 
dence of  which  the  subject  is  not  capable,  or  which  is  not 
accessible  to  us  at  the  present  time  ;  the  most  diligent 
and  persevering  inquiry  must  leave  us  unconvinced. 
The  proposition  laid  down  may  be  true  ;  but  we  shall  not 
be  satisfied  of  its  truth.  It  may  have  sufficient  evidence  ; 
but  our  mode  of  estimating  evidence  is  such  as  to  prevent 
conviction.  Suppose  a  man  is  accused  before  a  court  of 
justice  of  a  particular  crime ;  and  suppose  there  is  clear 
circumstantial  evidence,  and  that  only,  of  his  guilt.  If 
the  court  demand  direct,  positive  proof  of  the  crime,  the 
evidence  which  they  have  will  go  for  nothing,  and  the 
man,  though  manifestly  guilty,  must  be  pronounced  inno- 
cent. But  such  is  not  the  principle  which  governs  our 
courts  of  justice,  even  in  those  proceedings  which  relate 
to  life  and  death.  They  look  for  positive  evidence,  if  it 
can  be  had.  If  not,  they  admit  satisfactory  evidence  of 
another  kind. 

The  importance  of  just  views  respecting  evidence  is 
obvious  in  respect  to  moral  subjects  generally.  Even 
when  the  evidence  sought  is  of  the  right  kind  ;  we  must 
still  take  care  not  to  mistake  as  to  the  degree  of  it 
which  is  necessary.  In  regard  to  any  moral  truth,  it  be- 
longs not  to  us  to  determine  by  what  evidence  it  shall  be 
supported.  On  this  point,  our  expectations,  in  many  in- 
stances, may  be  greatly  disappointed ;   and   we  may  be 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  15 

obliged  either  to  reject  some  of  the  most  important  prin- 
ciples of  natural  and  revealed  religion,  or  to  be  satisfied 
with  evidence  very  different  from  what  we  once  supposed 
necessary  and  attainable.  Our  object  then  should  be  to 
discover  the  evidence,  whatever  may  be  its  kind  or  de- 
gree, which  is  within  our  reach,  and  which  shall  be  suf- 
ficient to  satisfy  a  reasonable  and  candid  man. 

We  are  to  remember  also,  that  much  depends  on  our 
prevailing  disposition.  Many  a  doctrine  is  of  such  a  na- 
ture, that  if  our  moral  state  is  right,  a  small  degree  of  ev- 
idence will  be  sufficient  to  produce  entire  conviction  of 
its  truth.  There  is  something  in  the  original  constitu- 
tion, or  in  the  acquired  habit  of  the  mind,  or  in  other 
truths  already  admitted,  which  predisposes  us  to  receive 
it.  This  constitution  or  habit  of  the  mind,  and  the  ad- 
mission of  other  truths  allied  to  the  one  under  considera- 
tion, may  have  the  effect  of  evidence  ;  and  if  it  could  be 
clearly  perceived  and  defined,  it  might  appear  to  have  the 
nature  of  evidence.  It  may  in  fact  be  evidence  of  the 
best  kind, — most  suited  to  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and 
most  likely  to  produce  a  steady  and  permanent  influence. 
Sometimes  this  state  of  the  mind,  and  the  evidence  of 
other  related  truths,  may  be  the  only  proof  we  can  now 
have  of  a  very  important  truth.  And  yet  this  truth  may 
be  as  clearly  apprehended  and  as  firmly  believed,  and  may 
exert  as  useful  an  influence  on  the  mind,  as  though  it 
were  proved  in  any  other  way  whatever.  It  will  be  very 
easy  for  those,  who  have  been  accustomed  to  think  pro- 
foundly on  moral  subjects,  to  recall  many  instances  of  this. 

The  foregoing  remarks  account  for  a  fact  of  frequent 
occurrence  ;  namely  ;  that  a  man  unhesitatingly  believes 
a  particular  truth,  and  yet  finds  it  very  difficult  to  exhib- 
it definitely  the  reasons  of  his   belief.     The  evidence  in 


16  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

such  a  case  may  be  so  concealed  in  its  nature,  or  so  gradual 
and  insensible  in  its  influence,  that  it  will  be  very  dif- 
ficult, even  for  a  nice  observer  of  the  operations  of  his  own 
mind,  clearly  to  describe  it ;  and  quite  impossible,  for 
those  who  have  but  little  cultivation.  So  that  it  cannot 
by  any  means  be  considered  as  a  conclusive  argument 
against  the  soundness  of  a  man's  faith,  that  he  is  at  pre- 
sent unable  distinctly  to  assign  the  reasons  of  it.  The 
manner  in  which  he  was  brought  to  believe  the  truth  may 
have  been  perfectly  conformed  to  right  reason,  and  per- 
fectly satisfactory  ;  and  yet  he  may  not  have  the  skill  re- 
quisite to  trace  it  out,  and  describe  it.  To  be  prepared 
for  this,  he  must  have  some  acquaintance  with  the  philo- 
sophy of  the  mind,  and  with  the  manner  of  developing  its 
principles  and  operations  in  proper  language.  But  for 
acquiring  this,  his  situation  may  afford  him  no  adequate 
advantages.  And  yet  that  same  situation  does  not  neces- 
sarily deprive  him  of  the  good  effects  of  a  rational  and 
well  established  faith. 

One  more  remark  on  this  point.  Although  the  evi- 
dence, by  which  we  are  able  to  prove  a  particular  truth, 
may  be  feeble,  or  obscure  ;  we  are  not  hence  to  conclude 
that  it  has  not,  even  now,  clear  and  perfect  evidence  in 
the  view  of  those  who  possess  a  higher  degree  of  knowl- 
edge. To  superior  intelligences,  and  certainly  to  the  di- 
vine mind,  every  truth  is  attended  with  perfect  evidence. 
But  this  perfect  evidence  may  be,  in  part,  or  altogether, 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  intellectual  power  which  we  now 
possess.  In  our  present  condition,  we  may  be  as  unable 
to  discern  it,  as  we  are  to  discern  the  light  which  illumin- 
ates the  most  distant  parts  of  creation.  But  the  growth 
of  our  mental  faculties  may  hereafter  enable  us  to  discov- 
er more  and  more  clearlv  the  evidence   which   now   lies 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  17 

concealed.  Such  is  the  consequence  of  the  limited  pow- 
ers of  our  understanding,  and  the  gradual  manner  in 
which  we  acquire  all  our  knowledge. 

If  you  apply  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  to 
the  subject  under  consideration,  you  will  soon  be  satisfi- 
ed of  the  truth  of  the  following  position  ;  namely ;  that 
the  want  of  an  express,  positive  command  of  Scripture 
that  infants  should  be  baptized,  is  not  to  be  considered  as 
a  valid  objection  against  Infant  Baptism.  As  this  posi- 
tion is  of  special  importance,  I  shall  take  some  pains  to 
illustrate  its  truth. 

Admitting,  as  we  must,  that  all  positive  religious  rites 
are  originally  founded  on  a  divine  command  ;  we  cannot 
safely  conclude  that  such  a  command  will  be  repeated  to 
all  those  who  shall  afterwards  be  under  obligation  to  ob- 
serve such  rites,  or  even  that  the  original  command  will 
be  preserved  and  communicated  to  them  in  the  sacred 
writings.  Neither  of  these  can  be  considered  as  indis- 
pensable ;  because  sufficient  evidence  of  a  divine  institu- 
tion may  be  afforded  in  some  other  way.  It  may  be  af- 
forded, particularly,  by  an  unwritten  tradition.  It  is  un- 
questionable, that  the  knowledge  of  some  extraordinary 
events  of  providence,  or  of  some  divine  injunctions  may 
be  as  truly  and  as  certainly  communicated  in  this  way,  as 
in  others;  and  we  should,  in  many  cases,  consider  a  man, 
who  should  refuse  to  admit  the  truth  and  authority  of  a 
tradition,  to  be  as  unreasonable,  as  if  he  should  refuse 
to  admit  the  truth  and  authority  of  written  or  printed  re- 
cords. 

If  we  should  insist  upon  the  repetition  of  a  divine  com- 
mand at  different  times,  or  upon  a  written  record  of  it, 
as  indispensable  ;  we  should  set  aside  one  of  the  methods 
which  God  has  manifestly  adopted  in  regard  to  the  posi- 


18  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tive  institutions  of  religion.  For  example  ;  what  clear 
and  certain  proof  have  we,  that  the  divine  command,  en- 
joining the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  or  the  offering  of 
sacrifices,  was  repeated  to  the  successive  generations  of 
men  from  Adam  to  Moses  :  or  that  they  had  evidence  of 
either  of  those  divine  institutions,  from  historical  records  ? 
And  what  certain  proof  is  there  of  the  repetition  of  the 
divine  command,  or  the  existence  of  any  historical  records, 
during  the  period  from  Abraham  to  Moses,  respecting  the 
rite  of  circumcision  1  And  to  come  down  to  later  times  ; 
what  express  command  has  God  given  to  us,  or  to  any 
Christians  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  requiring  the 
first  day  of  the  week  to  be  observed  as  a  Sabbath  ?  And 
what  express  declaration  have  we  in  the  sacred  records, 
that  such  a  command  was  ever  given  either  by  Christ  or 
his  Apostles  ?  In  regard  to  this,  we  who  observe  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  must  either  say,  that  a  divine  com- 
mand has  been  given  directly  to  us  ;  or  that  a  command 
originally  given  by  Christ,  has  been  preserved  to  us  in 
the  sacred  records, — neither  of  which  are  we  able  to  say  ; 
— or  we  must  justify  ourselves  in  observing  the  Lord's 
day,  because  some  other  considerations  show  that  such  is 
the  will  of  God.  On  what  ground  then  shall  we  proceed 
in  regard  to  this  subject  ?  We  must  be  sensible,  that  we 
have  no  express  command  from  God  to  us,  and  no  record 
of  any  former  command,  to  authorize  us  to  regard  the 
Christian  Sabbath  as  a  divine  institution.  Shall  we  then 
admit,  that  it  is  proper  for  us  to  fall  in  with  the  prevail- 
ing practice  in  regard  to  a  religious  rite,  merely  because 
we  judge  it  becoming  and  useful  ?  This  we  cannot  ad- 
mit. We  must  then  rest  the  Christian  Sabbath  on  the 
ground  of  the  original  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  as  en- 
joined in  the  fourth  command  of  the   Decalogue.     And 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  19 

we  must  at  the  same  time  admit,  that  the  original  institu- 
tion was  particularly  modified  at  the  commencement  of 
the  Christian  dispensation,  although  our  sacred  writings 
no  where  expressly  require  such  a  modification.  It  can- 
not but  be  evident  therefore,  that  if  we  should  insist  upon 
the  necessity  of  an  express  divine  precept,  either  original- 
ly addressed  to  us,  or  transmitted  to  us  by  the  sacred  re- 
cords, in  order  to  justify  us  in  observing  the  rite  of  In- 
fant Baptism;  we  should  contradict  our  own  practice  in 
regard  to  another  subject  very  analogous  to  this. 

And  what  shall  we  say  in  regard  to  female  commun- 
ion ?  The  Lord's  Supper  is  allowed  to  be  a  divine  insti- 
tution. But  it  was  enjoined  originally  upon  the  Apostles. 
Christ  did  not  give  the  command  to  females  5  and  there 
is  no  express  mention  in  the  New  Testament  of  their  hav- 
ing ever  received  the  Lord's  Supper.  We  all  believe  it 
to  be  the  will  of  God  that  they  should  partake.  But  how 
do  we  prove  this  1  Not  by  any  express  command  of  Christ. 
Not  by  any  definite  account  in  the  Scriptures,  that  they 
did  actually  partake.  The  argument  on  which  we  rest 
is  derived  from  the  reasonableness  of  the  thing  ;  from  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  early  Christian  churches,  as  set 
forth  in  Ecclesiastical  History  ;  and  from  what  appears 
to  be  implied  in  the  Scripture  account.  That  is,  we  be- 
lieve God  has  made  known  his  will,  that  pious  women 
should  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  without  the  least 
appearance  of  any  express  command  requiring  it,  and 
without  any  mention  in  the  Scriptures  of  their  ever  hav- 
ing partaken  in  the  first  Christian  churches.  The  single 
question  is,  by  what  evidence  we  are  satisfied  that  they 
ought  to  partake  ?  And  if  we  are  satisfied  in  this  case, 
without  any  express  command  ;  why  should  we  not  be  in 
the  other  case  ? 


20  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

My  object  in  this  place  is  to  remove  a  mistake  as  to 
the  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  which  should  be  deemed 
conclusive,  and  to  show  that  demanding  an  express  pre- 
cept in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  that  is,  demanding  a  new 
and  explicit  command  in  favor  of  the  dedication  of  chil- 
dren to  God  by  the  Christian  rite  of  baptism,  would  be 
unreasonable  and  inconsistent.  I  wish  every  man  to  set- 
tle it  in  his  mind  perfectly  and  forever,  that,  in  a  multi- 
tude of  cases,  other  evidence  ought  to  be  received,  and 
is  received,  as  satisfactory. 

Consider  a  moment  how  we  proceed  in  regard  to  so 
momentous  a  subject,  as  the  authority  of  some  of  the  sa- 
cred writings.  Take,  for  example,  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  which  we  receive  as  having  been  written  by 
inspiration  of  God.  But  why  do  we  thus  receive  it  ? 
What  is  the  kind  of  evidence  we  have  of  its  divine  inspi- 
ration and  divine  authority  ?  Do  the  other  Scriptures 
give  testimony  to  this  Epistle,  and  require  us  to  receive 
it  ?  No.  Does  the  author  of  the  Epistle  inform  us  that 
he  wrote  by  divine  inspiration  ?  Does  he  even  give  us  his 
name  ?  He  does  neither.  We  receive  this  book  as 
of  divine  authority,  because  Ecclesiastical  History  teach- 
es that  it  was  thus  received  by  the  generality  of  the  early 
Christians  ;  whom  we  know  to  have  been  far  better  qual- 
ified than  we  are,  to  form  a  right  judgement  in  regard  to 
its  claims.  It  is  primarily  on  the  ground  of  such  evidence 
as  this,  that  we  admit  the  Epistle  into  the  sacred  canon. 
The  intrinsic  excellence  of  the  Book,  and  its  correspond- 
ence with  other  parts  of  Scripture,  is  indeed  a  consideration 
of  great  weight  in  favor  of  its  divine  authority.  But  this 
consideration  is  of  a  very  different  nature  from  what  we 
understand  by  express,  positive  proof  from  the  word  of 
God.     The  same  as  to  some  other  parts  of  the  Christian 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  21 

Scriptures.  What  is  the  kind  of  evidence  which  we 
have  of  their  divine  inspiration  and  authority?  They 
are  sanctioned  by  no  voice  from  heaven ;  by  no  miracle  ; 
and  by  no  declaration  of  inspired  writers.  But  do  we 
therefore  reject  them  ?  No.  We  receive  them  as  a  part 
of  the  sacred  canon,  on  the  ground  of  Historical  evidence. 
That  is,  the  testimony  of  antiquity  is  in  their  favor.  We 
rely  on  that  testimony,  because  it  is  the  testimony  of  men 
competent  to  judge.  And  why  should  we  not  proceed  on 
the  same  general  principles  in  regard  to  Infant  Baptism  ? 
We  have  at  least  as  good  evidence  from  history  in  favor 
of  this,  as  we  have  that  the  Apocalypse,  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  and  some  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  were 
written  by  inspired  men.  How  then  can  we  consistently 
reject  it  ? 

Let  it  be  remembered,  that  we  did  not  originate  the 
human  mind,  nor  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  religion, 
nor  the  evidence  which  obliges  us  to  believe  those  doc- 
trines, and  observe  those  institutions.  The  faculties  of 
the  mind,  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  religion,  and 
the  evidence  which  supports  them,  are  all  of  God.  The 
manner  in  which  he  has  made  known  his  will,  and  the 
kind  and  degree  of  evidence  which  he  has  afforded  in 
favor  of  the  truths  and  duties  of  religion,  are  unquestiona- 
bly conformed  to  our  intellectual  and  moral  constitution  ; 
and  they  are  specially  suited  to  excite  us  to  diligent  ef- 
forts ;  to  give  due  exercise  to  candor  and  humility  ;  to 
make  us  feel  the  necessity  of  being  guided  by  the  divine 
Spirit ;  and  finally,  to  produce  such  a  conviction  in  us,  as 
will  best  subserve  the  purposes  of  moral  discipline.  It  is 
not  God's  way  to  give  us  evidence  of  the  highest  kind  and 
degree  possible.  As  to  many  moral  and  religious  truths, 
the  evidence  which  supports  them  is  far  from  being  so 
3 


2"2  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

clear  and  certain  as  we  should  naturally  expect.  It 
comes  indirectly.  It  comes  in  the  way  of  inference 
from  other  truths  more  plain  and  obvious.  It  some- 
times consists  in  a  kind  of  instinctive  moral  discern- 
ment,— a  spontaneous  operation  of  our  faculties,  which 
cannot  be  easily  described.  Sometimes  it  is  the  slow 
result  of  experience  and  observation.  And  if  a  pre- 
cept or  institution  is  concerned,  depending  ultimately  for 
its  authority  on  a  divine  revelation  ;  that  revelation  is  of- 
tentimes communicated  to  us  through  the  channel  of  his- 
tory or  tradition,  and  the  history  or  tradition  is  frequent- 
ly attended  with  no  small  degree  of  obscurity.  It  is  man- 
ifestly our  duty,  as  intelligent  beings,  and  in  the  diligent 
use  of  our  rational  powers,  to  hold  ourselves  ready  to  re- 
ceive just  such  evidence,  as  God  is  pleased  to  afford. 
And  if  any  of  us  should  undertake  to  prescribe  to  him, 
or  to  determine  beforehand  what  evidence  we  must  have 
to  satisfy  our  faith ;  and  if  we  should  reject  every  thing, 
which  is  not  attended  with  just  such  evidence  as  we 
might  judge  suitable  ;  we  should  give  up  some,  if  not  all 
of  the  most  important  moral  truths,  and  should  fall  into  a 
state  of  skepticism,  most  fearful  in  its  influence  on  our 
present  and  our  eternal  interests. 


LECTURE  II. 


Reasoning  of  the  former  Lecture  confirmed  by  particular  considerations  in  favor 
of  Infant  Baptism.  1.  Its  suitableness  to  the  relation  of  parents  and  chil- 
dren. 2.  This  relation  had  been  marked  by  a  religious  rite  through  the  Pa- 
triarchal and  Mosaic  dispensation.— That  rite  respected  spiritual  blessings.— 
Objection  considered. 

In  the  last  Lecture,  I  endeavoured  to  support  the 
following  position  ;  namely  ;  that  the  want  of  an  express 
declaration  of  Scripture  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  is 
not  a  valid  argument  against  it. 

Thus  far  my  remarks  have  respected  Infant  Baptism 
as  a  religious  institution  in  a  general  view.  But  there 
is  a  special  consideration  in  relation  to  this  particular 
rite  ;  a  consideration  which  will  give  additional  force  to 
the  remarks  I  have  made,  and  which  will  show  still  more 
clearly,  that  we  should  not  demand  an  express  precept  of 
Scripture  for  baptizing  children,  and  that  other  evidence 
should  satisfy  us,  that  Infant  Baptism  is  a  divine  institu- 
tion. 

The  consideration  is,  that  a  religious  rite  of  long 
standing,  and  intended  for  the  same  general  purposes  with 
Baptism,  had,  by  express  appointment  of  God,  been  uni- 
formly applied  to  infant  children.  The  existence  of 
such  a  rite,  and  the  high  importance  which  was  univer- 
sally attached   to  it  by  the  people  of  God,  would  make  it 


24  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

easy  to  substitute  in  its  place  a  rite  of  the  same  general 
import,  but  different  in  form.  This  last  rite,  indicating 
generally  the  same  thing  with  the  former,  would  require 
less  formality  of  divine  injunction — less  appearance  of  in- 
terposition on  the  part  of  God  to  introduce  it,  than  would 
be  necessary  to  introduce  an  institution  whose  design  and 
application  are  entirely  new.  Those  Christians,  who  had 
been  familiar  with  the  previous  rite  of  infant  circumcis- 
ion, that  is,  the  previous  mode  of  consecrating  children 
to  God,  must  have  been  predisposed  in  favor  of  Infant 
Baptism,  and  must  have  been  ready,  at  any  intimation  of 
Christ  or  his  Apostles,  at  once  to  receive  it.  Yea,  they 
must  have  been  ready  to  fall  in  with  it,  as  a  matter  of 
course.  The  public  consecration  of  children  to  God  by 
a  religious  rite  had  for  many  ages  been  a  standing  prac- 
tice in  the  church.  It  came  not  from  Moses,  but  from 
Abraham,  the  father  of  those  who  believe  in  all  nations, 
Now  what  is  the  consecration  of  children  to  God  by  Bap- 
tism, but  a  previous  appointment  of  God,  that  is,  the  ap- 
pointment of  infant  consecration,  so  modified  in  regard 
to  its  form,  as  to  agree  with  the  Christian  dispensation  ? 
In  such  a  case,  especially  if  the  original  institution  was 
held  in  high  estimation,  and  attended  with  high  endear- 
ments ;  what  more  could  be  deemed  necessary,  than  that 
the  will  of  God  should  be  made  known,  as  to  the  new 
form  of  carrying  into  effect  his  original  design  ?  After 
such  an  expression  of  the  divine  will,  that  is,  the  appoint- 
ment of  Baptism,  we  should  think  that  the  dedication  of 
children  to  God  under  the  new  form  would  immediately 
go  into  practice.  It  is,  I  think,  quite  manifest,  that,  in 
the  case  now  under  consideration,  there  was  less  occa- 
sion for  an  express  command  from  God,  to  give  sanction 
and  prevalence  to  the  new  rite,  that  is,  to  the  new  form 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


25 


of  consecration,  than  if  no  rite  of  similar  import  had  exist- 
ed before. 

In  several  respects,  you  will  perceive  a  striking  anal- 
ogy between  the  institution  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  that  of 
the  Christian  Sabbath.  The  institution  of  a  sabbath,  one 
day  in  seven,  had  been  established  from  the  creation  of 
the  world.  Under  the  reign  of  Christ,  the  original  insti- 
tution was  to  undergo  a  certain  alteration.  But  how  was 
this  alteration  effected  ?  How  was  the  Christian  church 
brought  to  give  up  the  seventh  day,  and  to  observe  the 
first,  as  a  Sabbath  ?  Was  an  express  divine  command 
formally  announced,  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  day  ?  Did 
God  come  forth  in  his  majesty,  as  he  did  on  Sinai,  and 
say  in  the  hearing  of  the  apostles  and  early  christians,  the 
first  day  is  the  Sabbath, — keep  that  day  holy  to  the 
Lord  ?  And  was  such  a  command  as  this  put  on  record 
by  the  inspired  writers,  and  transmitted  from  one  genera- 
tion to  another,  as  the  fourth  command  in  the  Decalogue 
was  ?  Nothing  like  this  has  taken  place  ;  nor  have  we 
thought  it  at  all  necessary.  How  then  have  we  been 
brought  to  give  up  the  seventh  day  as  a  Sabbath,  and  to 
keep  the  first  in  its  place  ?  We  find  no  command  of 
Christ  or  his  apostles.  And  we  find  no  express  declara- 
tion of  Scripture,  that  the  Apostles  and  first  Christians 
uniformly  kept  the  first  day  as  a  Sabbath.  But  we  are 
satisfied,  because  there  are  several  things  in  the  Acts  and 
Epistles,  which  plainly  imply  that  they  did  so  ;  and  be- 
cause, in  addition  to  this,  we  have  historical  evidence 
that  the  Lord's  day  was  generally  observed  by  the  early 
Christian  churches,  and  that  the  seventh  day  Sabbath 
gradually  fell  into  disuse.  Thus,  on  the  ground  of  what 
was  practised  by  those  who  lived  near  the  apostles,  and 
xvho  had  the  best  advantages  to  form  a  correct  judge- 
3* 


26 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


merit,  and  because  too,  though  without  any  express  decla- 
ration of  Scripture,  there  is  reason  to  think,  that  sucli 
was  the  practice  of  the  Apostles ;  we  feel  ourselves  au- 
thorized and  obliged  to  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week 
as  a  Sabbath.  But  would  Christians  have  been  so  easi- 
ly satisfied  of  their  obligations  to  keep  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, had  there  not  been  a  weekly  Sabbath  enjoined  by 
divine  command,  and  uniformly  observed  by  God's  peo- 
ple through  preceding  ages  ?  The  more  seriously  I  have 
reflected  on  this  subject,  the  more  fully  have  I  become 
satisfied,  that  the  previous  existence  of  similar  observan- 
ces must  have  produced  such  an  effect  on  the  minds  of 
the  first  Jewish  Christians,  as  perfectly  to  prepare  them 
to  receive  the  Christian  Sabbath  and  Infant  Baptism,  with- 
out any  new  enactment,  or  any  explicit  declaration  what- 
ever in  their  favor.  But  they  could  not  have  been  pre- 
pared for  this,  had  these  institutions  been  altogether  new. 

Having  considered  so  particularly  the  proper  mode  of 
reasoning,  and  suggested  what  seemed  necessary  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  a  fair  discussion  ;  I  shall  proceed  to  the 
considerations  which  bear  directly  upon  the  subject  of  In- 
fant Baptism.  In  treating  this  controverted  subject,  I 
shall  take  the  liberty  to  follow  my  own  way  of  thinking, 
and,  with  little  reference  to  the  views  of  others,  shall  lay 
before  you  those  considerations  which  have  had  the  great- 
est influence  on  my  own  mind,  and  which,  after  much 
anxious  inquiry,  have  conducted  me  to  a  satisfactory  con- 
clusion. 

The  first  consideration  I  shall  suggest  is,  that  the  rite 
of  Infant  Baptism  manifestly  corresponds  with  the  natu- 
ral relation  beticeen  parents  and  children.  It  is  not 
enough  to  say  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the 
two  things,  and  that  the  relation  of  parents  and  children 


INFANT  BAPTISM  27 

can  afford  no  objection  against  Infant  Baptism.  For 
nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  this  rite  has  a  perfect 
suitableness  to  the  relation  of  parents  and  children.  This 
relation  is  of  such  a  nature  and  attended  with  such  cir- 
cumstances, that  Infant  Baptism  becomes  obviously,  and 
in  the  highest  degree,  just  and  proper.  I  acknowledge 
that  this  argument  does  not,  by  itself,  prove  Infant  Bap- 
tism to  have  been  appointed  by  God,  and  to  be  obligato- 
ry upon  Christians.  But  it  shows  at  least,  that,  if  God 
was  pleased  to  appoint  it,  the  appointment  must  be  regard- 
ed as  having  a  perfect  fitness  and  propriety.  It  shows 
too,  that  we  ought  readily  to  fall  in  with  the  practice,  if 
there  is  any  plain  indication  of  God's  will  in  its  favor ; 
that  a  lower  degree  of  evidence  is  sufficient  to  bring  us 
under  obligation  to  adopt  it  as  a  divine  institution,  than  if 
it  had  no  such  obvious  fitness. 

This  view  of  the  subject  cannot  be  considered  as  ob- 
jectionable by  any  one,  who  well  considers  how  we  form 
our  opinions  in  regard  to  many  other  subjects.  How, 
for  instance,  do  we  reason  in  regard  to  a  subject  referred 
to  in  the  last  Lecture,  that  is,  female  communion  1  We 
say,  it  is  manifestly  suitable  ;  that  pious  women  have  the 
same  reason  to  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ,  as  pi- 
ous men  ;  that  its  being  enjoined  in  general  terms  is  a 
sufficient  indication  of  the  divine  will  in  regard  to  the  or- 
dinance, and  that  pious  women,  having  all  the  general 
reasons  to  partake  of  the  ordinance  with  pious  men,  have 
a  fair  title  to  partake,  on  the  ground  of  the  general  ap- 
pointment, without  waiting  for  a  command  addressed 
specifically  to  them.  But  we  could  not  think  such  a  con- 
clusion correct,  if  there  were  no  evident  fitness  in  the 
thing  itself,  and  if  a  positive  divine  precept  were  consid- 
ered to  be  essential. 


28  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

The  same  as  to  the  Lord's  day.  We  perceive  it  to 
be  altogetherjws*  and  proper,  that  so  important  an  event 
as  the  resurrection  of  Christ  should  be  commemorated, 
and  that  the  day,  on  which  it  took  place,  should  be  con- 
secrated to  the  honor  of  the  Saviour,  by  all  his  followers. 
In  this  way  we  are  prepared  to  think  favorably  of  chang- 
ing the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  day  to  the  first.  And 
being  thus  impressed  with  the  fitness  of  the  thing,  we 
are  easily  satisfied  with  the  circumstances,  which  indi- 
cate that  this  is  the  will  of  God.  When  we  find  that  the 
Apostles  and  first  Christians  observed  that  day,  and  that 
it  became  the  practice  of  Christian  churches  universally 
to  do  so ;  we  feel  at  once  that  the  practice  was  suitable  ; 
that  it  corresponded  with  the  nature  and  ends  of  the 
Christian  religion,  and  that  what  the  apostles  and  first 
Christians  did,  manifested  the  pleasure  of  God ;  and  so, 
without  suspicion,  we  fall  in  with  the  prevailing  practice. 
But  had  we  no  such  perception  of  the  fitness  of  the  thing  ; 
how  could  prevailing  practice  have  such  an  effect  upon 
us? 

In  forming  our  judgement  on  such  a  subject  as  this, 
we  should  keep  in  mind,  that  God  has  given  us  reason 
and  moral  sense,  and  thus  rendered  us  capable  of  discern- 
ing the  relations  of  things,  and  of  determining,  in  most 
cases,  what  is  suitable  to  those  relations ;  and  that  it  is 
often  in  this  way  only,  that  we  are  able  to  discover  the 
will  of  God. 

The  relation  existing  between  parents  and  children 
is  seldom  taken  into  serious  consideration  ;  and  it  is  still 
more  seldom  the  case,  that  its  nature  and  importance  are 
rightly  apprehended.  A  little  attention  to  the  circum- 
stances of  this  relation,  particularly  to  the  affections 
which  attend  it,  the  obligations  involved  in  it,   and  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  29 

consequences  resulting  from  it,  will  satisfy  any  one,  that 
it  is  among  the  most  interesting  and  momentous  relations 
on  earth. 

Every  human  being,  from  the  commencement  of  his 
existence,  is  the  object  of  an  affection  indescribably  ar- 
dent and  tender.  This  affection,  which  lodges  in  the 
hearts  of  parents,  and  results  necessarily  from  the  consti- 
tution they  have  received  from  their  Creator,  is  universal, 
except  where  that  constitution  is  greatly  perverted. 
Whenever  a  child  is  born,  an  affection  springs  up  in  the 
hearts  of  his  parents,  which  will  afford  protection  to  his 
weakness  and  supply  to  his  wants  ;  which  will  prompt 
them  to  constant,  untiring  labors,  and  make  it  even  a 
pleasure  for  them  to  forego  the  common  gratifications  of 
life,  and  to  endure  self-denial,  watching,  and  fatigue,  for 
the  sake  of  that  helpless  being  who  is  entrusted  to  their 
care.  For  a  time  this  affection  operates  without  rational 
intercourse,  without  acquaintance,  and  without  any  return 
of  service,  or  even  of  gratitude ;  for  of  every  thing  like 
this  the  new-born  infant  is  incapable.  Parental  affection 
is  fixed  and  durable.  Causes  which  extinguish  other 
kinds  of  affection,  generally  leave  this  in  all  its  strength, 
and  often  prove  an  occasion  of  increasing  its  warmth  and 
activity.  The  affection  of  parents,  instead  of  ceasing 
with  the  feebleness  and  the  wants  of  their  offspring,  ex- 
tends its  kind  regards  over  his  whole  life,  and  when  re- 
gulated by  religious  principle,  aims  at  nothing  less  than 
to  promote  his  happiness  through  an  immortal  existence. 

Now  the  mere  fact  that  the  relation  of  parents  to  their 
offspring  is  attended  with  an  affection  of  so  unparalleled 
a  nature,  marks  this  relation  as  one  of  vast  consequence, 
and  indicates  that  God  intended  to  make  it  subservient  to 
very  important  ends  in  his  government- 


30  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

This  relation  involves  high  obligations.  The  pre- 
cepts of  God's  word  on  this  subject  are  such  as  sound 
reason  must  approve.  Parents  are  required  to  bring  up 
their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 
The  duties  of  parents  are  so  various  and  constant,  that, 
if  rightly  performed,  they  must  occupy  a  considerable 
portion  of  human  life ;  and  they  are  so  arduous,  as  to  re- 
quire a  high  effort  of  our  rational  and  moral  powers,  and 
the  aids  of  God's  Holy  Spirit.  These  duties  are  so  im- 
portant, that  they  cannot  be  neglected,  without  consequen- 
ces the  most  fatal  to  the  interests  of  he  church  and  the 
world.  The  duties  of  parents,  and  the  influence  which 
they  ought  to  possess  over  their  children,  must  generally 
be  considered  as  the  chief  means  of  forming  the  charac- 
ter of  the  rising  generation,  and  preparing  them  for  use- 
fulness ;  the  chief  means  of  saving  the  souls  of  men,  and 
propagating  the  Christian  religion  from  one  generation  to 
another. 

These  remarks  are  all  confirmed  by  the  word  and 
providence  of  God.  From  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
the  character  and  condition  of  children  have  generally  re- 
sulted from  the  conduct  of  parents.  The  peculiar  char- 
acter of  a  tribe  or  nation  has  commonly  been  derived  from 
the  character  of  its  father  or  head.  This  extends  to  the 
religious,  as  well  as  to  the  social  and  secular  character. 
The  history  of  the  Christian  church  shows  that,  after  it 
has  once  been  established  in  any  place,  it  has  depended, 
for  its  continuance  and  increase,  chiefly  upon  the  success 
of  parents  in  promoting  the  piety  of  their  children. 

The  foregoing  remarks  are  not  offered  as  proof  that 
God  has  in  fact  commanded  that  children  should  be  bap- 
tized ;  but  to  show,  that,  according  to  our  best  views  of 
the  subject,  Infant  Baptism  has  an  obvious  fitness.     If 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  31 

the  relation  between  parents  and  children  is  so  vastly  im- 
portant ;  it  is  manifestly  proper  that  it  should  have  some 
mark  set  upon  it,  to  show  in  what  estimation  it  is  held 
by  the  Creator  of  the  world.  And  as  this  relation  involves 
the  most  momentous  duties,  and  the  highest  interests  of 
religion  ;  it  is  manifestly  proper  that  it  should  be  marked 
by  a.  religious  rite.  If  a  public  religious  rite  may  be  pro- 
perly used  for  the  purpose  of  impressing  truth  or  duty  on 
the  minds  of  men  in  any  case ;  it  may  surely  be  in  this. 
Thus  the  considerations  above  stated,  though  they  do  not 
directly  prove  Infant  Baptism  to  be  a  divine  institution, 
are  sufficient  to  show  that  such  a  religious  rite  entirely 
corresponds  with  the  nature  and  design  of  the  relation  be- 
tween parents  and  children,  and  that  it  is  very  fit  and 
reasonable  that  such  a  relation  and  the  duties  involved  in 
it  should  be  marked  by  some  expressive  sign. 

The  second  consideration  which  I  shall  offer  is, 
that  the  relation  between  parents  and  children,  and  the 
consecration  of  both  to  God,  was  actually  marked  by  a  di- 
vinely appointed  and  significant  rite,  through  the  Patri- 
archal and  Mosaic  economy. 

Here  observe  that  the  same  rite  was  appointed  for 
parents  and  children.  Observe  too,  that  this  rite,  intend- 
ed for  children  as  well  as  parents,  did  not  originate  in  the 
Mosaic  ritual,  but  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  the  father 
of  all  believers,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  and  was  prac- 
tised among  the  Israelites  from  generation  to  generation, 
till  the  death  of  Christ. 

Should  a  difficulty  arise  in  your  minds  respecting  the 
reasoning  here,  or  in  other  places,  from  the  circumstance, 
that  this  rite  was  not  applied  to  female  children  ;  I  would 
say  briefly,  that  nothing  is  more  common  in  our  modes 
of  speech,  and  in  the  most  important  transactions  of  life, 


32  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

than  for  males  to  represent  or  include  females.  Thus  it 
is  said,  that  "  Joshua  circumcised  the  children  of  Israel," 
— that  "  all  the  people  were  circumcised."  That  is,  the 
males  were  circumcised  in  fact,  and  the  rest  virtually, 
or  considered  as  included  with  them  ;  and  so,  "  all  the 
people  were  circumcised."  The  rite  of  circumcision  was 
of  the  same  general  import,  in  relation  to  daughters,  as 
to  sons.  It  involved  the  same  parental  obligations  to- 
wards them,  imposed  on  them  the  same  filial  duties,  and 
secured  to  them  the  same  blessings,  as  if  it  had  been  ac- 
tually applied  to  them.  This,  I  think,  must  be  evident  to 
all.  And  if  the  fact,  that  female  children  were  not  cir- 
cumcised, made  no  difference  as  to  the  import  of  the  rite, 
if  they  were  as  really  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  and  as 
really  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  the 
holy  seed,  as  if  they  had  been  circumcised  ;  then  why 
should  their  not  being  circumcised  make  any  difference 
in  our  reasoning  ? 

It  is  equally  true  that  the  import  of  the  rite  was  not 
varied  at  all  by  the  application  of  it  to  servants.  For 
they  stood  in  a  real  relation  to  their  masters,  and  were 
circumcised  on  account  of  that  relation,  though  the  rela- 
tion was  inferior  to  that  of  children  to  their  parents. 
The  rite  surely  could  not  denote  any  thing  less  in  refer- 
ence to  children,  because  it  was  applied,  in  a  secondary 
way,  to  others. 

This  rite  evidently  had  a  primary  relation  to  spiritual 
blessings.  It  was  a  confirmation  of  that  most  gracious 
and  spiritual  promise  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  I  will 
be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed.  Circumcision,  the 
Apostle  tells  us,  Rom.  4:  11,  ivas  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith  which  Abraham  had  while  uncircumcised. 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  posterity  did  in~ 


INFANT  BAPTISM 


deed  include  a  great  variety  of  temporal  blessings ;  par- 
ticularly, their  title  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  all  their 
institutions  and  laws  relating  to  their  worldly  state.  And 
it  is  equally  true  that  all  necessary  temporal  blessings  are 
promised  to  believers  under  the  new  covenant.  "Godli- 
ness is  profitable  unto  all  things,  having  the  promise  of 
the  life  that  now  is,  as  well  as  of  that  which  is  to  come." 
1  Tim.  4:  8.  But  these  temporal  blessings  in  both  cases  are 
to  be  considered  only  as  appendages  of  the  spiritual  good 
secured  to  the  obedient  by  the  divine  promises.  The  prom- 
ises of  the  former  economy  were  as  high  and  spiritual,  as 
any  contained  in  the  Christian  Scriptures  ;  and  the  prin- 
cipal one,  /  will  be  your  God,  is  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  involving  the  most  precious  Gospel  bless- 
ings. Heb.  8:  10.  2  Cor.  6:  16.  The  Old  Testament 
economy  contained  also  the  most  spiritual  and  holy  pre- 
cepts. It  contained  the  decalogue,  and  various  other 
commands,  requiring  holiness  of  heart  and  life.  The 
character  which  God  exhibited  was  the  same  under  the 
former  dispensation,  as  under  the  latter.  The  character, 
which  he  required  of  those  who  were  under  the  former 
economy,  was  the  same  as  he  required  of  the  followers  of 
Christ.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart.  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy.  Deut.  6:  5.  Lev.  20: 
7.  Matt.  22:  37.   1  Pet.  1:  15,  16. 

It  may  indeed  be  alleged,  that  the  Israelites,  as  a  na- 
tion, were  not  holy ;  that  they  did  not  render  to  God  a 
sincere  spiritual  service,  and  that  the  economy,  under 
which  they  were  placed,  did  not  in  fact  secure  to  them 
spiritual  blessings.  This  is  true.  But  this  is  not  to  be 
charged  to  that  system  of  laws  and  rites  and  promises, 
which  God  gave  for  their  benefit,  but  to  themselves. 
Had  they  conformed  to  the  nature  and  design  of  that 
4 


34  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

economy,  circumcision  would  have  been  an  actual  confir- 
mation to  them  of  spiritual  blessings.  Now  surely  we  are 
not  to  judge  of  the  former  economy  from  the  character 
of  those  who  were  placed  under  it.  As  a  general  fact, 
their  character  was  directly  contrary  to  the  nature  and 
design  of  that  economy  ; — as  really  so,  as  the  character  of 
the  bulk  of  nominal  Christians  in  the  most  corrupt  age 
of  the  church  has  been  contrary  to  the  design  of  the 
Christian  economy.  But  who  would  think  of  urging  the 
degraded,  corrupt  character  exhibited  at  any  time  by 
nominal  Christians,  as  a  proof  that  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation was  not  intended  to  be  of  a  spiritual  nature,  or  that 
its  rites  were  not  intended  to  be  signs  of  spiritual  bless- 
ings ?  No  distinction  can  be  more  obvious,  than  that  be- 
tween the  real  nature  of  a  divine  economy,  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  it  is  used  by  those  who  are  placed  under  it. 
As  to  the  former  economy,  the  question  is  not,  what  was 
the  actual  character  of  the  Israelites  ;  but  what  was  the 
character  which  they  ought  to  have  possessed, — the  char- 
acter which  the  precepts  and  the  spirit  of  the  dispensa- 
tion required  them  to  possess  ?  Now  if,  from  generation 
to  generation,  they  had  been  obedient  and  holy  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  that  economy  ;  who  could  ever  have 
doubted  that  the  economy  was  a  spiritual  one,  and  that 
circumcision  was  a  seal  of  spiritual  blessings  ?  So  far  as 
they  kept  God's  covenant,  it  was  in  fact  a  seal  of  spiritu- 
al blessings  both  to  parents  and  children.  It  set  forth 
God's  design,  that  the  true  religion,  with  all  its  attendant 
benefits,  should,  by  means  of  parental  faithfulness  and 
prayer,  be  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another. 
And  if  the  Israelites  universally  from  Abraham  to  Christ 
had  truly  conformed  to  that  divine  institution  ;  then  cir- 
cumcision would  have  been  in  fact  what  it  was  designed 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  35 

to  be,  a  confirmation  of  God's  promise,  I  will  be  a  God 
to  thee  and  thy  seed.  And  let  me  repeat  it,  that  the 
nature  and  design  of  a  rite,  instituted  by  God,  cannot  be 
altered  by  the  disobedience  and  perversness  of  men. 

I  well  know  that  there  are  some  passages  in  the  New 
Testament,  especially  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and 
to  the  Hebrews,  which  seem  at  first  view  to  militate 
against  what  I  have  advanced  in  regard  to  the  spiritual 
nature  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  This  is  a  subject  which 
requires  a  longer  and  more  minute  investigation,  than 
would  be  proper  in  this  place.  I  must  therefore  refer  you 
to  what  others  have  written,  after  suggesting  two  things, 
which  I  think  very  obvious. 

First.  The  Apostle  in  his  whole  argument  in  Gal.in. 
makes  a  distinction  between  the  Mosaic  economy,  or  law, 
and  God's  covenant  with  Abraham;  and  he  takes  spe- 
cial pains  to  teach,  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was 
unalterable ;  that  believers  in  Christ  come  under  that 
very  covenant ;  that  they  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise,   that  is,  the  promise  made  to 

Abraham;  and  that   it  is  the  blessing  of  Abraham, 

the  blessing  promised  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  which 
all  believers  inherit.  It  must  therefore  be  obvious,  that 
whatever  there  was  in  the  Mosaic  economy  which  was 
earthly  and  changeable,  God's  covenant  with  Abraham 
was  spiritual  and  immutable,  securing  all  the  blessings  to 
which  believers  in  Christ  are  entitled.  And  it  must  not 
be  forgotten,  that  circumcision  was  first  appointed  to  be 
the  seal,  not  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  but  of  this  spirit- 
ual and  immutable  covenant  of  God  with  Abraham. 

Second.  When  in  Heb.  vin.  the  writer  says,  that  the 
first  covenant,  (evidently  meaning  the  Mosaic  or  Sinai 
covenant,)  was  faulty  and  ineffectual,  that   it  had  waxed 


36  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

old  and  was  ready  to  vanish  away  ;  he  evidently  refers  to 
the  Levitical  Priesthood,  and  the  ancient  ritual,  which 
were  both  appointed  only  for  temporary  purposes,  and 
were  to  cease  after  the  death  of  Christ.  How  then  does 
the  passage  prove  that  a  spiritual  and  unchangeable  cov- 
enant, the  same  as  the  one  made  with  Abraham,  was  not 
contained  in  the  Mosaic  dispensation  ?  The  spiritual 
precepts  and  promises  found  there,  prove  that  such  a  cov- 
enant was  contained.  Accordingly,  circumcision,  though 
it  was  connected  with  the  Mosaic  ritual  and  made  a  part 
of  it,  was  still,  through  that  whole  dispensation,  what  it 
was  originally  designed  to  be,  a  confirmation  to  all  true 
saints  of  the  spiritual  blessings  secured  by  God's  cove- 
nant with  Abraham. 

The  general  position  then  stands  firm,  that  the  cove- 
nant, of  which  circumcision  was  appointed  to  be  the  sealt 
wqs  spiritual,  gracious  and  immutable. 


LECTURE  III. 


The  Christian  religion  founded  on  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  We  cannot 
conclude  that  Christ  did  not  give  specific  instructions  on  any  subject  from  the 
fact  that  such  instructions  are  not  recorded. — The  Scriptures  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament imply  that  the  children  of  believers  are  to  be  baptized. — Rule  of  inter- 
pretation;  viz.  we  must  put  ourselves  as  far  as  may  be,  in  the  place  of  those 
who  gave,  and  of  those  who  received  instruction.  Circumstances  of  those 
to  whom  Christ  gave  the  commission  to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations. 
How  they  must  have  understood  this  commission.  Proselyte  Baptism. — Gen- 
eral representation  of  Scripture  and  course  of  providence. 

We  now  come  to  the  introduction  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,  and  the  appointment  of  Baptism  as  a  sign 
of  discipleship  to  Christ,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  a 
seal  of  God's  covenant  with  believers. 

Here  let  me   remark,  first,  that  the   Christian  relig- 
ion was  evidently  founded  upon  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, and  ivas,  for  substance,  a  continuation  of  the  re- 
ligion there  taught.     Christ  frequently  declares,  that  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  make  known   his  char- 
acter, and  the  principles  of  his  gospel.     He   frequently 
appeals  to  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  for 
the  confirmation  of  what  he  taught.     The  Apostles  do 
the  same,  and  clearly  make  it  known  to  be  their  wish, 
that  the  soundness  of  their  instructions  should   be  tested 
by  the  Scriptures.     And  we  well   know  that,  whenever 
they  speak  of  the  Scriptures,  they  refer  to  the  Old  Tes- 
4* 


38  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tament.  Carefully  peruse  the  Evangelists,  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  and  the  Epistles,  and  see  in  what  manner 
Christ  and  the  Apostles  treat  the  Scriptures,  and  how 
they  labor  to  show,  that  Christianity  is  not  &new  religion, 
but,  as  to  its  principles,  its  whole  substance,  is  the  very 
religion  which  was  taught  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  ; 
— from  which  consideration  they  most  justly  conclude, 
that  no  man  can  reject  Christianity  without  rejecting  Jthe 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  that  no  one  can  truly  be- 
lieve those  Scriptures  without  believing  Christianity. 

I  cannot  think  that  any  quotations  in  proof  of  the 
foregoing  remarks  will  be  thought  necessary  by  those  who 
are  conversant  with  the  Scriptures. 

From  such  a  view  of  the  subject  it  seems  very  natural 
to  conclude,  that  any  general  principle  of  religion,  and 
any  practice,  established  under  the  former  economy, 
will  be  continued,  though  it  may  be  in  a  different  form, 
under  the  Christian  economy,  unless  the  reasons  have 
ceased  on  which  that  principle  or  practice  was  founded, 
or  unless  God  has  expressly  set  it  aside.  For  example  ; 
it  is  just  to  conclude  that  public  icorship,  which  was  es- 
tablished under  the  former  dispensation,  will  be  continu- 
ed under  the  latter,  though  doubtless  with  such  changes 
in  the  form,  as  the  peculiarities  of  the  Christian  economy 
shall  require.  If  Christ  or  his  Apostles  ever  intimated 
io  the  Jews,  that  a  change  was  called  for  in  the  spirit  of 
their  religion,  they  did  it,  unquestionably,  with  reference 
to  the  corruptions  and  abuses  which  had  prevailed,  not 
with  reference  to  the  religion  which  was  actually  taught 
in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  which  has  already 
been  referred  to,  furnishes  another  illustration  of  the  pro- 
priety of  our  reasoning  on  the  present  subject.     This  in- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  39 

stitution  rests  on  the  essential  principles  of  our  intellec- 
tual and  moral  nature.  There  must  be  a  sacred  day, — a 
day  devoted  to  the  worship  of  God.  There  is  the  same 
reason  for  it  under  both  dispensations.  The  change  then, 
if  there  be  any,  must  relate  to  outward  form  and  circum- 
stance. By  the  will  of  him  who  is  the  Lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath, the  particular  day  to  be  observed  under  the  Chris- 
tian economy  is  different,  and  the  observance  attended 
with  fewer  and  simpler  ceremonies.  Still  there  is  a  sa- 
cred day  every  week  under  the  present  dispensation,  as 
really  as  there  was  under  the  Jewish  or  Patriarchal.  In 
respect  to  the  necessity  and  utility  of  such  a  day,  and 
the  command  of  God  to  observe  it,  there  is  no  change. 

The  same  appears  to  be  true  in  regard  to  the  subject 
under  consideration.  There  must  be  a  seal  of  God's 
gracious  covenant,  and  of  the  relation  which  his  people 
sustain  to  him.  The  importance  of  such  a  seal  to  pro- 
mote in  the  highest  degree  the  ends  of  religion,  must  be 
obvious  to  all  who  are  acquainted  with  the  constitution  of 
the  human  mind ;  and  it  must  be  equally  obvious  in  all 
ages.  It  is  reasonable  therefore  to  think,  that,  under  both 
dispensations,  God's  covenant  will  have  a  seal,  whatever 
difference  there  may  be  in  the  form  of  it.  Why  should 
not  the  unalterable  relation  of  children  to  parents,  and  of 
both  to  God,  be  marked  by  a  religious  rite  now,  as  well 
as  formerly  ?  According  to  the  will  of  God,  that  rite, 
under  the  former  economy,  was  circumcision  ;  under  the 
present,  it  is  baptism.  The  general  import  of  both  is  the 
same. 

I  remark,  secondly,  that  we  cannot  certainly  conclude 
that  our  Saviour  did  not  give  his  Apostles  specific  in- 
structions on  this  or  any  other  subject,  merely  because 
such  instructions  are  not  preserved  in  the  records  of  the 


40  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

New  Testament.  The  Evangelists  have  given  us  no 
more  than  a  very  summary  account  of  what  Christ  taught 
during  his  public  ministry.  They  could  do  nothing  more 
than  this,  as  John  plainly  suggests  at  the  end  of  his  gos- 
pel ;  where  he  tells  us,  that  if  all  should  be  written,  the 
world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books.  We  are  not, 
however,  to  infer  from  this,  that  the  instructions  of  Christ, 
which  are  not  found  in  the  sacred  records,  were  unim- 
portant ;  or  that  they  had  no  effect,  or  were  of  no  use  : 
or  even  that  their  effect  does  not  reach  to  the  present 
day,  or  that  they  are  of  no  use  to  us.  They  were  design- 
ed to  have  their  primary  and  direct  influence  on  the 
minds  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  who  were  to  be  teach- 
ers of  the  Christian  religion,  and  were,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  Christ's  reign,  to  give  a  right  direction  to  all  the 
affairs  of  his  kingdom.  Accordingly,  the  effect  of  Christ's 
instructions  to  them  must  have  appeared  in  the  constitu- 
tion and  form  of  the  churches  which  they  established. 
In  various  respects  this  is  the  only  method  in  which  it  is 
possible  for  us  to  determine  what  Christ's  instructions 
were.  And  under  proper  restrictions,  it  is  a  just  and 
satisfactory  method. 

From  the  effects  which  the  Apostles  produced,  we 
may  learn  what  they  did.  And  from  what  they  did,  we 
may  learn  what  instructions  they  received  from  Christ. 
In  this  way  we  proceed  in  regard  to  the  Passover,  and 
the  Seventh-day  Sabbath.  There  is  no  record  of  any 
direction  of  Christ  to  set  aside  either  of  them.  But  we 
find  that  they  were  set  aside  among  those  Christians  whom 
the  Apostles  taught.  From  this  we  may  reasonably  con- 
clude what  instructions  the  Apostles  gave  ;  and  then, 
what  they  received  from  Christ.  And  we  form  this  con- 
clusion respecting  the  last,  without  the  mention  of  any 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  41 

command  or  counsel  from  Christ  to  his  Apostles,  or  from 
the  Apostles  to  Christian  converts.  We  find,  farther, 
that  Christians  did,  in  some  special  sense,  observe  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  This  the  sacred  records  clearly 
show.  We  learn  from  other  sources,  that  while  the  Sev- 
enth-day Sabbath  gradually  ceased  to  be  observed  in  the 
primitive  churches,  the  Lord's  day  was  observed  in  its 
place.  From  these  circumstances  we  infer  what  the 
Apostles  taught  the  first  Christians,  and  what  they  them- 
selves were  taught  by  Christ.  And  I  venture  to  say,  if 
the  New  Testament  were  altogether  silent  respecting  the 
first  day  of  the  week  being  made  a  sacred  day,  and  if  we 
only  found  that  the  Christian  church  does  now  uniformly 
observe  the  Lord's  day,  as  a  Sabbath,  and  that  this  has 
been  the  case  from  the  time  of  the  first  Christian  church- 
es ;  we  should  be  satisfied  that  such  was  the  will  of 
Christ ;  that  he  had  so  instructed  the  Apostles,  and  that 
they  had  so  instructed  the  first  Christians. 

The  same  general  remarks  apply  to  the  present  sub- 
ject. There  is  no  mention  made  in  the  New  Testament 
of  any  definite  instructions  of  Christ  to  the  Apostles,  or 
of  the  Apostles  to  Christians,  in  regard  to  the  baptism  of 
little  children.  But  can  we  infer  from  this,  that  no  defi- 
nite instructions  were  given  ?  Such  instructions  might 
have  produced  the  effect  designed,  first,  upon  the  Apos- 
tles themselves,  and  then,  through  them,  upon  the  minds 
of  Christian  converts.  And  it  may  remain  for  us  to  learn 
what  those  instructions  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  were, 
from  what  we  discover  to  have  been  the  practice  of  the 
first  churches.  We  should  unquestionably  reason  just  so 
now,  in  a  similar  case.  Suppose,  without  any  previous 
knowledge  of  the  subject,  we  should  visit  a  place  in  Af- 
rica,  where   a    Christian    missionary   had    successfully 


42  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

preached,  and  founded  a  church,  he  having  been  the  on- 
ly minister  of  the  gospel  who  had  labored  in  that,  place. 
And  suppose  our  visit  to  take  place  some  time  after  his 
death.  Would  not  the  prevailing  usages  of  that  church 
show,  to  our  perfect  satisfaction,  what  instructions  he 
gave  ?  If  we  should  find  it  the  practice  of  that  church 
to  baptize  only  adult  believers,  and  to  do  it  by  immersion  ; 
should  we  not  conclude  at  once,  that  the  minister  who 
taught  them  was  a  Baptist  ?  But  if  we  should  find  that 
the  church,  thus  founded  by  his  faithful  labors,  and  gui- 
ded by  his  wisdom,  was  in  the  practice  of  baptizing  their 
infant  children,  and  that  this  had  been  their  uniform 
practice  from  the  beginning ;  should  we  not  conclude 
that  he  taught  them  to  baptize  their  children  1  Most 
certainly  men  in  general,  of  whatever  denomination, 
would  judge  in  this  manner,  and  would  be  satisfied  what 
the  instructions  of  any  distinguished  missionary  were, 
from  the  prevailing  usages  of  a  church  founded  by  his  in- 
fluence. And  such  would  be  the  conclusion  we  should 
form,  for  a  long  time  after  his  decease,  unless  the  influ- 
ence of  subsequent  teachers  of  different  views,  or  some 
other  visible  causes,  had  operated  to  produce  a  change. 
Indeed  it  is  clear,  that  the  form  and  usages  of  a  church 
in  any  place  must  be  derived  from  the  principal  teacher, 
and  conformed  to  his  views.  And  if  those  Christians 
who  deny  Infant  Baptism,  could,  among  the  treasures  of 
antiquity,  discover  a  history  bearing  every  mark  of  au- 
thenticity, and  containing  a  particular  account  of  the 
churches  in  Asia  Minor  immediately  after  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  and  if  that  history  should  plainly  affirm  that 
those  churches  never  baptized  children,  and  that  the 
children  of  believers,  on  coming  to  adult  years  and  pro- 
fessing their  faith  in  Christ,  were  then  baptized  ;  I   say, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  43 

if  those  who  deny  Infant  Baptism,  could  find  from  au- 
thentic records,  that  such  was  the  usage  of  those  church- 
es ;  they  would  think  this  to  be  a  very  valuable  discove- 
ry, and  the  uniform  practice  of  those  churches  to  baptize 
adult  believers,  and  those  only,  to  be  a  valid  proof  that 
they  were  so  taught  by  the  Apostles. 

But  I  shall  now  proceed  to  argue  the  point  from  the 
inspired  records,  just  as  they  are.  My  position  is,  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  understood  accord- 
ing to  just  rules  of  interpretation,  imply  that  the  children 
of  believers  are  to  be  baptized. 

The  rule  of  interpretation,  which  is  of  the  highest 
consequence,  and  which  will  aid  us  most  in  discovering 
the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  in  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject now  before  us,  is,  that  we  put  ourselves,  as  far  as 
may  be,  in  the  place  of  those  who  gave  instruction,  and  of 
those  who  received  it. 

You  will  easily  perceive  the  importance  and  necessity 
of  this  rule.  For  in  numberless  instances,  a  declaration 
or  direction  derives  its  peculiar  meaning  from  the  con- 
sideration of  the  person  who  speaks,  or  of  those  to  whom 
he  speaks.  Who  does  not  know  that  the  same  combi- 
nation of  words  has  a  very  different  meaning  in  one  place 
from  what  it  has  in  another  ?  Even  when  the  general 
sense  of  the  words  is  the  same,  the  circumstances  of 
the  case  must  determine  the  extent  of  meaning  which 
they  bear,  or  what  is  implied  in  the  application  of  them 
to  the  subject  in  hand.  Some  fact,  some  prevalent  cus- 
tom, or  habit  of  thinking,  may  give  them  a  specific  signi- 
fication ;  and  without  taking  such  fact  or  custom  into 
view  we  shall  be  likely  to  miss  the  exact  sense  and  import 
of  the  words.  In  how  many  instances  should  we  be  at  a 
loss  respecting  the  meaning  of  historians,  poets,  and  or- 


44  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ators,  without  taking  into  account  the  age  and  place  in 
which  they  lived,  and  the  character,  laws,  and  usages  of 
the  people  with  whom  they  were  conversant,  and  for 
whom  they  wrote. 

As  a  single  illustration  of  the  importance  of  this  prin- 
ciple ;  look  at  a  text  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which 
God  requires  that  the  Sabbath  should  be  sanctified. 
How  do  you  ascertain  which  day  is  meant  ?  Simply  by 
considering  what  previous  instructions  and  commands 
were  given  to  the  Israelites  on  the  subject,  and  what  their 
usage  was.  In  this  way  we  are  satisfied  that  the  seventh 
day  was  meant.  Look  now  at  a  law,  in  an  English  or 
American  statute  book,  requiring  the  people  to  abstain 
from  secular  business  on  the  Sabbath.  How  do  you  as- 
certain which  day  is  meant  here  ?  In  the  same  manner  as 
before, — by  considering  what  has  been  the  usage  of 
Christians  generally,  and  particularly  of  that  people  for 
whom  the  law  was  made.  In  this  way  we  are  satisfied 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week  must  be  meant. 

Let  us  now  come  directly  to  the  subject.  Christ  ap- 
pointed Baptism  to  be  administered  to  all  who  should  be- 
come proselytes  to  his  religion,  that  is,  to  all  Christians ; 
and  when  he  was  about  leaving  his  Apostles,  who  were 
to  be  employed  as  the  instruments  of  converting  the 
world,  he  gave  them  this  commission  ;  "  Go  ye,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  word 
Ha&riTevoute,  rendered  teach,  properly  signifies,  make  dis- 
ciples ;  proselyte ;  convert  to  the  Christian  religion. 
The  commission  then  is  this ;  "  Go  ye,  proselyte,  or  make 
disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This 
command  was  given  by  one  who  was  born  a  Jew,  and  ed- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  45 

ucated  among  the  Jews,  and  was  perfectly  acquainted 
with  all  their  institutions  and  laws,  with  their  customs 
and  usages,  and  with  the  dispensations  of  divine  provi- 
dence towards  them.  And  the  command  was  addressed 
to  Jews.  Now  whatever  there  was  in  this  general  cir- 
cumstance, which  could  have  an  influence  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  the  command,  or  which  would  naturally  cause  it 
to  be  understood  in  one  way  or  another,  is  worthy  of 
special  attention. 

Let  it  be  considered  then,  that  the  Jews  had  long 
been  accustomed  to  make  proselytes  from  paganism  to 
their  religion.  The  obligation  to  do  this  had  been 
brought  to  view  in  the  divine  law,  and  rules  had  been 
given  for  the  proper  treatment  of  proselytes.  To  make 
proselytes  was  regarded  as  a  great  object ;  and  the  efforts 
of  the  Jews  to  bring  others  to  embrace  their  religion 
were  crowned  with  extensive  success.  Proselytes  were 
numerous  both  in  Greece  and  in  Rome  ;  and  it  seems 
that,  after  the  persecuting  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
some  whole  nations,  as  the  Idumeans,  Itureans,  and  Mo- 
abites  professed  the  Jewish  faith.  And  whenever  gen- 
tiles embraced  the  Jewish  religion,  they  were  treated  in 
regard  to  circumcision,  according  to  the  Jewish  law; 
that  is,  they  were  circumcised, — parents  and  children. 
This  was  the  law  of  the  Jews ;  and  this  was  the  uniform 
practice.  Hence  it  must  be  easy  to  determine  how 
Christian  Jews  would  be  likely  to  understand  the  duty 
of  proselyting  idolaters  and  unbelievers  to  the  true  reli- 
gion. Suppose  that  God,  previously  to  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, had  selected  twelve  Jews,  and  sent  them  forth 
to  convert  Greeks  and  Romans  to  their  religion,  and 
without  any  mention  of  children,  had  merely  given  them 
this  commission  :  Go  ye,  proselyte  and  circumcise  them. 
5 


46 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


Would  they  not  have  understood  such  a  commission  as 
requiring  them  to  circumcise  the  children  of  converted 
Greeks  and  Romans  ?  Unquestionably  they  would.  And 
why  ?  Because  they  ivere  Jews,  and  had  always  been  ac- 
customed to  the  circumcision  of  children,  as  will  as 
parents.  In  obedience  to  this  divine  command,  they 
would  have  gone  to  the  people  specified,  and  in  all  the 
instances  in  which  men  were  made  proselytes,  would 
have  circumcised  them  and  their  children. 

Again.  Suppose,  in  such  a  case,  a  command  had 
been  given,  which  included  baptism  with  circumcision  ; 
thus  :  Go  ye,  and  proselyte  those  nations,  circumcising 
and  baptizing  them.  Still  not  a  word  about  children ; 
but  simply,  Go  and  proselyte  those  nations  to  Judaism, 
circumcising  and  baptizing  them.  Most  certainly  they 
would  have  understood  that  baptism,  as  well  as  circumci- 
sion, was  to  be  applied  to  proselytes  and  their  children. 

But  suppose  that  baptism  had  been  put  in  the  place  of 
circumcision,  as  the  sign  to  be  put  upon  proselytes  to 
Judaism  ;  and  so  the  command  to  those  Jewish  teachers 
had  been  ;  Go  ye,  proselyte  and  baptize  the  people  of 
Greece  and  Rome.  Must  they  not  have  understood  the 
command  in  the  same  way  1  Surely  those  who  were 
acquainted  with  the  commands  and  institutions  which 
God  gave  to  Abraham  and  to  Moses,  and  who  had  always 
been  accustomed  to  observe  them,  could  have  had  no 
doubt,  that  the  rite  which  marked  the  relation  of  prose- 
lytes to  God,  was  to  be  applied  to  their  children  also. 

Thus  far  all  must  have  the  same  opinion.  Such  a 
divine  command  to  Jews  before  the  time  of  Christ, 
whether  it  appointed  circumcision  only,  or  circumci- 
sion, together  with  Baptism,  or  Baptism  instead  of  cir- 
cumcision, as  a  mark  to  be  applied  to  those  who  were 
proselyted  to  the  Jewish  religion,  must  have  been  under- 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


47 


stood  as  intended  to  be  applied  also  to  the  children  of 
proselytes,  though  no  mention  was  made  of  children  in 
the  command. 

I  am  now  only  availing  myself  of  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant principles  of  interpretation,  and  attempting  to 
show,  what  influence  must  have  been  produced  upon  the 
meaning  of  Christ's  direction  by  the  circumstance,  that 
he  was  a  Jeic,  and  that  he  gave  the  direction  to  Jews, 
whose  laws  and  usages  had  been  what  the  Scriptures  rep- 
resent. 

But  to  illustrate  this  principle  still  farther  ;  suppose 
it  to  have  been  the  appointment  of  our  Saviour,  after  his 
public  ministry  began,  that  circumcision  should  be  ap- 
plied to  converts  to  Christianity,  as  it  had  been  to  con- 
verts to  Judaism  ;  and  suppose  him  to  have  said  to  his 
Apostles ;  "  Go  ye,  proselyte  all  nations,  and  circumcise 
them," — making  no  mention  of  children.  Could  the 
Apostles  have  doubted  a  moment,  in  such  a  case,  wheth- 
er circumcision  was  meant  to  be  applied  to  the  children 
of  proselytes  ?  But  why  should  we  suppose  they  would 
put  a  different  construction  upon  the  commission  they  re- 
ceived from  Christ,  because  Baptism  was  made  the  sign 
of  proselytes,  instead  of  circumcision  1  There  is  evident- 
ly nothing  in  the  import  of  the  sign,  which  would  require 
any  difference  in  its  application.  For  Baptism  is  ap- 
pointed simply  as  a  sign,  to  be  put  upon  those  who  are 
proselyted  to  Christianity.  If  circumcision  had  been  con- 
tinued, and  Christ  had  commanded  it  to  be  put  upon  Chris- 
tian proselytes,  as  it  had  been  upon  proselytes  to  the  re- 
ligion of  Moses ;  the  meaning  and  use  of  it  would  have  been 
perfectly  the  same,  as  the  meaning  and  use  of  Baptism. 

But  there  is  another  consideration  which  may  help  to 
satisfy  us  still  farther,  how  the  Apostles  must  have  un- 
derstood their  commission  to  baptize  converts  to  Chris- 


48  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tianity  ;  namely  ;  the  previous  practice  of  the  Jews  to 
baptize  proselytes  and  their  children. 

The  evidence  of  such  a  practice  among  the  Jews, 
though  some  think  it  not  decisive,  has  been  very  satis- 
factory to  most  men  of  distinguished  learning  and  judge- 
ment. Knapp,  in  his  Theology,  gives  the  following  brief 
view  of  the  arguments  in  proof  of  Proselyte  Baptism  ; 
namely  ;  "  The  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  Rabbins  ; 
the  universality  of  this  practice  among  the  Jews  of  the 
second  century  ;  the  striking  similarity  of  the  Jewish  ex- 
pressions concerning  the  baptism  of  proselytes,  to  those 
which  occur  in  the  New  Testament  respecting  the 
Christian  rite  ;  and  the  circumstance  that  Josephus,  in 
his  account  of  John  the  Baptist,  does  not  express  the  least 
surprise  at  the  practice  of  baptism,  as  a  new  and  unwont- 
ed ceremony."  Knapp  suggests  also,  what  I  think  to  be 
deserving  of  special  consideration,  that  if  the  baptism  of 
proselytes  was  customary  among  the  Jews  at  or  before 
the  time  of  Christ,  many  things  could  be  explained  more 
clearly  from  this  circumstance,  than  in  any  other  way. 

Some  have  doubted  whether  the  Baptism  of  Proselytes 
was  in  use  before  the  Christian  era,  because  the  earliest 
of  the  Jewish  writers  who  mention  the  practice,  lived 
some  time  after  Christ. 

In  regard  to  this  subject,  let  the  following  things  be 
well  considered. 

First.  The  Rabbins  unanimously  assert  that  the  Bap- 
tism of  Proselytes  had  been  practised  by  the  Jews  in  all 
ages,  from  Moses  down  to  the  time  when  they  wrote. 
Now  these  writers  must  have  been  sensible  that  their  con- 
temporaries, both  Jews  and  Christians,  knew  whether 
such  a  practice  had  been  prevalent,  or  not.  And 
had  it  been  known   that  no  such  practice  had  existed  ; 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


49 


would  not  some  Jews  have  been  found,  bold  enough  to 
contradict  such  a  groundless  assertion  of  the  Rabbins  ? 
At  least,  would  there  not  have  been  some  Christians,  fired 
with  the  love  of  truth,  and  jealous  for  the  honor  of  a  sa- 
cred rite  first  instituted  by  Christ,  who  would  have  ex- 
posed to  shame  those  who  falsely  asserted  that  a  similar 
rite  had  existed  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  ?  But 
neither  of  these  things  was  done. 

Second.  Had  not  the  Jews  been  accustomed  to  bap- 
tize Proselytes  previously  to  the  Christian  era  ;  it  is  ex- 
tremely improbable  that  they  would  have  adopted  the 
practice  afterwards.  For  their  contempt  and  hatred  of 
Christianity  exceeded  all  bounds,  and  must  have  kept 
them  at  the  greatest  possible  distance  from  copying  a  rite 
peculiar  to  Christians. 

Third.  It  seems  to  have  been  perfectly  consistent  and 
proper  for  the  Jews  to  baptize  proselytes.  For  their  di- 
vine ritual  enjoined  various  purifications  by  washing,  or 
baptism.  And  as  they  considered  all  Gentiles  to  be  un- 
clean, how  could  they  do  otherwise  than  understand  the 
divine  law  to  require,  that  when  any  of  them  were  pros- 
elyted to  the  Jewish  religion,  they  should  receive  the  same 
sign  of  purification,  as  was,  in  so  many  cases,  applied  to 
themselves  ? 

But  the  subject  is  too  extensive  to  be  particularly  dis- 
cussed here.  I  beg  leave  to  refer  those  who  wish  to  ex- 
amine it  for  themselves,  to  Lightfoot's  Hor.  Heb.  on 
Matt.  in.  and  John  in.  Wall's  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism, 
Introduction.  Gale's  Reflections  on  Wall's  History  : 
Michaelis  Dogm.  §  180.  Ernesti  Vindicias  arbit.  div.  §  49, 
Jahn's  Archaeology.  Wetstein  on  Matt.  3:  6.  Gill's  Body 
of  Divinity.  R.  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  and  other 
works  on  the  same  subject. 
5* 


50  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

I  will  only  add,  that  a  farther  consideration  of  the  ar- 
guments which  prove  Proselyte  Baptism,  and  of  the  ob- 
jections urged  by  Gill,  Robinson  and  others  against  it, 
has  produced  in  my  mind  a  stronger  conviction  of  its 
truth,  than  I  had  when  I  published  the  first  edition  of 
these  Lectures. 

If  then  it  had  been  the  uniform  custom  of  the  Jews 
to  baptize  proselytes  to  their  religion,  as  we  certainly 
have  much  reason  to  think  ;  it  is  clear  that  the  Baptism 
of  Proselytes  by  John  and  by  Christ  was  no  new  thing. 
It  is  at  any  rate  clear  that  Baptism,  as  a  religious  rite, 
had  been  familiarly  known  among  the  Jews  from  the 
time  of  Moses.  So  that  the  rite  which  John  the  Baptist 
instituted  was  not  by  any  means  a  new  rite.  The  ques- 
tion put  to  him  (John  1:  25)  plainly  implies,  that  Bap- 
tism was  not  regarded  by  the  Jews  at  that  time  as  a  new 
rite. — It  was  this  rite,  long  used  for  ceremonial  purifica- 
tion, and  also  in  the  case  of  Proselytes  to  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion, which  John  applied  to  those  Jews  who  listened  to 
his  instructions,  and  gave  signs  of  repentance.  After- 
wards Christ  ordained,  that  this  same  rite,  which  had 
thus  been  used  among  the  Israelites  for  purification,  and 
thus  applied  to  converted  Gentiles,  and  to  Jews  who  re- 
pented under  the  preaching  of  John,  should  from  that 
time  be  applied  to  all  in  every  part  of  the  world,  who 
embraced  Christianity.  The  work  of  proselyting  men 
to  the  true  religion  had  before  been  carried  on  within 
narrow  limits.  It  was  now  to  be  carried  on  extensively  ; 
and  Baptism,  in  the  Christian  form,  was  now  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  all  proselytes.  "  Go  ye,  and  proselyte  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  judging  of  the 
true  meaning  and  intent  of  this  commission,  the  Apostles 
would  naturally  consider  in  what  manner  Baptism  had 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  51 

been  administered  ;  and  particularly,  its  having  been  ap- 
plied to  proselytes  and  their  children.  This  last  circum- 
stance, in  addition  to  the  other  with  which  they  were  so 
familiar,  that  of  having  children  as  well  as  parents  con- 
secrated to  God  by  circumcision,  must  have  had  a  direct 
and  decisive  influence  upon  the  construction  which  the 
Apostles  put  upon  their  commission,  and  must  have  led 
them  to  conclude,  that,  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
children,  as  well  as  parents,  were  to  be  devoted  to  God 
by  Baptism,  unless  some  contrary  instruction  was  given 
to  prevent  such  a  conclusion.  Knapp  says ;  "  If  Christ 
in  his  command  to  baptize  all,  Matt,  xxviii,  had  wished 
children  to  be  excepted  ;  he  must  have  expressly  said 
this.  For  since  the  first  disciples  of  Christ,  as  native 
Jews,  knew  no  other  way  than  for  children  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  Israelitish  church  by  circumcision  ;  it  was 
natural  that  they  should  extend  this  to  Baptism,  if  Christ 
did  not  expressly  forbid  it.  Had  he  therefore  wished  that 
it  should  not  be  done,  he  would  surely  have  said  so  in 
definite  terms." 

Another  consideration  which  shows,  that  it  must  have 
been  perfectly  consistent  for  the  Apostles  to  understand 
their  commission  in  the  manner  above  stated,  is,  that  the 
Scriptures  so  often  represent  parents  and  children  as  re- 
ceiving the  same  treatment  from  divine  providence,  and 
as  being  closely  connected  together  in  respect  to  their 
most  important  interests.  "  I  will  be  your  God,  and  the 
God  of  your  seed." — "Visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fa- 
thers upon  the  children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  gene- 
ration of  them  that  hate  me,  and  showing  mercy  unto 
thousands," — that  is,  thousands  of  generations,  "  of  them 
that  lo\;e  me  and  keep  my  commandments."  "  That  he 
may  prolong  his  days,  he  and  his  children."     "  Keep  my 


52  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

commandments,  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  with 
thy  children  after  thee."  "  They  are  the  seed  of  the 
blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  their  offspring  with  them." 
With  such  representations  as  these  the  course  of  divine 
providence  had  a  striking  correspondence.  It  was  a 
general  fact  that,  whether  mercies  or  judgements  came 
upon  men,  their  children  were  partakers  of  the  same. 
And  this  principle  of  the  divine  administration  had  a 
special  reference  to  the  interests  of  religion.  Now  the 
Apostles  were  perfectly  acquainted  with  this  principle. 
They  had  the  highest  reverence  for  those  sacred  writings, 
which  exhibited  such  views  of  the  connexion  between 
parents  and  children  ;  and  they  had  been  brought  up  un- 
der a  divine  economy,  which  afforded  continual  confirma- 
tion of  what  their  Scriptures  taught  in  regard  to  this  con- 
nexion. What  violence  then  must  they  have  done  to  all 
those  habits  of  thinking  and  feeling,  which  they  had  de- 
rived from  the  word  and  providence  of  God,  had  they 
supposed,  that  parents  and  children  were  no  longer  to  be 
connected  together  in  the  concerns  of  religion,  or  in  pub- 
lic and  sacred  transactions,  or  that  the  consecration  of 
parents  and  children  to  God  was  no  longer  to  be  mark- 
ed, as  it  always  had  been,  with  the  sign  of  the  dispensa- 
tion under  which  they  were  placed  ! 

It  is  no  objection  to  this  train  of  thought,  that  the 
promises,  above  recited,  were  conditional.  For  they  were 
no  more  conditional  in  regard  to  children,  than  in  regard 
to  parents:  And  the  fact  that  a  promise,  or  covenant  has 
proper  conditions,  is,  surely,  no  reason  why  it  should  not 
have  a  token  or  seal. 


LECTURE   IV 


The  argument  from  the  circumstances  of  the  Apostles  reviewed,  and  shown  to  be 
conclusive. — Mode  of  understanding  a  charter. — Did  Christ  give  any  previous 
instruction  which  could  have  shown  the  Apostles  in  what  manner  they 
were  to  understand  their  commission,  or  how  they  were  to  regard  children  ! 
— Matt.  19:  13,  14  particularly  considered. 

The  general  position,  which  I  endeavoured  to  sup- 
port in  the  last  Lecture,  was  this ;  that  the  Apostles,  be- 
ing native  Jews,  and  having  the  impressions  and  habits 
of  thinking,  which  pious  Jews  would  necessarily  derive 
from  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  the  usages  of  the  na- 
tion, with  the  rites  inculcated  in  their  Sacred  writings, 
and  with  the  representations  there  made  respecting  the 
divine  conduct  towards  parents  and  children,  must  have 
understood  their  commission  to  baptize  proselytes,  as  in- 
tended to  include  children  with  their  parents. 

The  mode  of  reasoning,  which  has  been  pursued, 
must,  I  think,  be  satisfactory.  Its  conclusiveness  rests 
on  a  principle  of  interpretation,  which  is  acknowl- 
edged to  be  of  the  first  importance ;  namely  ;  that  we 
should  place  ourselves,  as  far  as  possible,  in  the  circum- 
stances of  those  who  wrote  the  Scriptures,  and  of  those 
to  whom  they  were  addressed,  and  in  this  way  endeav- 
our to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  what  was  written.  From 
Ecclesiastical  History  we  can  derive  a  very  conclusive 
argument,  that  the  Apostles  did  in   fact  understand  the 


o4  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

institution  of  Baptism,  as  intended  for  believers  and  their 
children.  But  why  did  they  understand  it  in  this  man- 
ner 1  I  answer,  that  without  the  supposition  of  any  di- 
rect and  explicit  instruction  on  the  subject  from  Christ, 
or  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  there  were  reasons,  in  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  the  Apostles  were  placed,  sufficient 
to  satisfy  them,  that  such  was  the  design  of  the  institu- 
tion. Take  the  New  Testament  just  as  it  is,  and  con- 
sider what  instructions  Christ  gave  his  Apostles  in  re- 
gard to  Baptism,  particularly  his  final  commission  to  them, 
to  go  and  proselyte  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  proper  inquiry  is  not  how  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans would  have  understood  such  a  commission  ;  for 
the  Apostles  were  neither  Greeks  nor  Romans,  and  their 
Lord  who  commissioned  them,  was  neither  a  Greek  nor 
a  Roman.  Our  inquiry  is,  how  such  a  commission  would 
naturally  be  understood  by  those  who  were,  both  by 
birth  and  education,  Jews  ;  how  it  would  be  understood, 
by  those,  who  had  derived  their  opinions  from  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  and  Jewish  usages,  and  who  were  the  willing  ser- 
vants of  one  who  was  himself  a  Jew,  and  the  King  of  the 
Jews  ?  To  me  it  appears  evident,  that  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  case,  taken  together,  must  have  had  a  decisive 
influence  in  favor  of  the  Baptism  of  infants.  For  it  was 
a  well  known  fact,  that  the  seal  of  God's  gracious  cove- 
nant had,  from  Abraham  to  that  time,  been  applied  to 
children.  And  this  application  of  it  was  manifestly 
grounded  on  a  permanent,  unchangeable  principle,  that 
is,  the  natural  relation  between  parents  and  children,  and 
the  propriety  and  duty  of  both  being  consecrated  to  God. 
The  seal  which  was  appointed  to  be  put  upon  God's  peo- 
ple under  the  reign  of  Christ,  was  of  the  same  genera! 


INFANT  BAPTISM  55 

import  with  the  one  previously  used.  In  this  view,  there- 
fore, there  was  the  same  apparent  reason  for  applying  it 
to  the  children  of  God's  people  then,  as  before.  As  to 
its  form,  the  seal  was  changed  ;  but  as  to  its  import,  it 
was  the  same.  The  relation  of  good  men  to  God,  which 
was  marked  by  this  sign,  was  the  same  ;  and  the  relation 
of  their  children  to  them  was  the  same.  How  then  could 
the  Apostles  doubt  that  children  were  still  to  receive  the 
sign  of  the  covenant,  as  they  had  formerly  ?  With  their 
impressions,  and  their  usages  ;  with  their  sacred  regard 
to  the  principles  established  by  the  Scriptures,  and  by  the 
divine  administration ;  particularly,  with  their  habit  of 
looking  upon  children  as  being,  by  God's  appointment, 
closely  united  to  their  parents  in  respect  to  character,  and 
privileges,  and  prospect  of  happiness ;  they  must,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  have  understood  the  command  of  Christ  to 
baptize  Christian  proselytes,  as  extending  to  their  child- 
ren also.  Had  the  promise  of  God,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed,"  or  had  the  circumcision  of  the 
children  of  God's  people  in  connexion  with  that  promise, 
rested  on  any  principle,  which  appertained  to  the 
Patriarchal  or  Jewish  dispensation  in  distinction  from 
the  Christian  ;  the  Apostles,  placed  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  instructed  as  they 
were  in  regard  to  its  nature,  would  have  been  satisfied  of 
course,  that  children  were  no  longer  to  be  marked  with 
the  seal  of  God's  covenant,  or  to  be  consecrated  to  him 
by  any  religious  rite.  But  children's  being  comprehend- 
ed with  their  parents  in  God's  covenant,  and  their  re- 
ceiving the  same  mark  of  his  covenant  mercy  and  of  con- 
secration to  him  with  their  parents,  all  rested  upon  prin- 
ciples, which  were  universal  and  immutable,   and  which 


56  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

were  to  have  as  much  prominence  and  influence  under 
the  reign  of  Christ,  as  before. 

We  have  seen  too,  that  the  reasoning  in  this  case  is 
analogous  to  the  reasoning  commonly  relied  upon,  in  re- 
lation to  the  Sabbath.  The  reason  of  a  Sabbath  day  lies 
in  the  nature  of  man,  and  in  his  relation  to  God,  and  so 
is  immutable.  Consequently,  the  fourth  command,  how- 
ever changed  as  to  form,  or  circumstances,  must  continue 
as  to  substance.  There  must  be  a  sacred  day.  Its  be- 
coming a  Christian  institution,  and  its  being  observed  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the  seventh,  alters 
not  the  substance  of  the  fourth  command,  nor  the  obliga- 
tion of  Christians  to  obey  it.  In  the  same  manner,  the 
reason  for  Infant-consecration  lies  in  the  nature  and  im- 
portance of  the  relation  existing  between  children  and 
their  parents,  and  the  relation  of  both  to  God,  and  so 
must  be  the  same  in  all  ages.  This  relation  is  as  obvious 
and  important,  and  as  worthy  of  being  marked  by  a  re- 
ligious rite  now,  as  formerly.  The  sign  of  consecration 
now  is  Baptism  ;  and  all  the  reasons  in  the  case  conspire 
to  favor  the  application  of  it  to  children.  Thus  we  ap- 
prehend the  subject  must  have  presented  itself  to  the 
minds  of  the  Apostles  and  first  Christians. 

The  view  which  we  have  adopted  on  this  subject, 
agrees  best  with  the  common  method  of  understanding  a 
charter,  securing  to  any  society  of  men  the  enjoyment  of 
privileges.  Such  a  charter  is,  by  common  consent,  to 
be  understood  in  the  largest  sense  it  will  bear.  Suppose 
the  grant  of  privileges  to  a  society  is  made  in  general 
terms  ;  that  is,  neither  the  individuals  nor  classes  of  men 
belonging  to  the  society  are  specified.  Now  he,  who  is 
entrusted  with  the  execution  of  the  charter,  is  bound  to 
bestow  the  privileges  granted,  on  all   who  can  fairly  be 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  57 

considered  as  belonging  to  the  society.  And  if  any  one 
should  object  to  bestowing  the  chartered  privileges  on 
any  individuals  fairly  comprehended  within  the  society, 
it  would  be  incumbent  on  him  to  show  that  those  indi- 
viduals were  expressly  excepted  in  the  terms  of  the  grant. 
Especially  would  it  be  proper  to  give  this  wide  construc- 
tion to  the  grant,  if  it  were  well  known,  that  a  previous 
grant,  of  the  same  nature,  had  expressly  required  this  ex- 
tensive application  of  its  privileges.  And  it  would  be  a 
stronger  reason  still  for  understanding  the  charter  in  such 
a  sense,  if  the  charter  itself  were  evidently  nothing  more, 
than  the  modification,  as  to  outward  form,  of  a  previous 
charter,  which  was  more  particular,  and  which,  in  the 
most  explicit  terms,  secured  its  privileges  to  those,  whose 
title  is  now  called  in  question.  In  such  a  case,  it  would  aid 
us  much  in  determining  the  extent  of  meaning  to  be  put 
upon  the  more  general  terms  of  the  charter  in  its  present 
form,  to  inquire  how  it  was  with  the  charter  when  first  giv- 
en. And  if,  on  examination,  it  should  be  found  that  it  was 
the  will  of  the  prince,  that  the  privileges,  originally  grant- 
ed, should  be  thus  extensively  applied ;  we  should  be  sat- 
isfied at  once  that  the  privileges  of  the  charter  in  its 
present  form,  were  meant  to  be  applied  to  an  equal  ex- 
tent,— unless  there  was  an  express  limitation.  And  we 
should  feel  this  satisfaction  in  the  highest  possible  degree, 
if  it  appeared  that  the  prince  made  the  alteration  in  the 
form  of  the  original  charter,  with  the  declared  design  of 
carrying  its  privileges  to  a  larger  extent. 

To  make  the  principle  I  have  laid  down  perfectly  in- 
telligible and  satisfactory,  suppose  the  following  case. 
In  a  time  of  sudden  invasion,  a  king  publishes  a  decree, 
that  those  who  serve  faithfully  in  the  present  war,  shall 
during  life  be  entitled,  they  and  their  children,  to  the  in- 
6 


58  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

structions  of  the  public  teachers  of  learning  and  religion, 
and  to  the  attention  of  authorized  physicians,  at  the  pub- 
lic expense.  Children  are  specified ;  and  so  no  doubt 
can  exist  as  to  the  extent  of  privileges  secured  by  the  de- 
cree. Some  years  after,  another  war  takes  place.  The 
king,  gratified  with  the  results  of  the  former  measure, 
again  publishes  his  decree,  and  sends  it  forth  to  the 
more  distant  parts  of  his  empire,  securing  the  same  privi- 
leges to  those  who  serve  faithfully  in  this  war.  But  the 
decree  in  its  present  form,  contains  no  distinct  mention 
of  children.  During  the  war  the  king  dies.  Afterwards 
the  question  arises,  whether  the  decree,  which  he  last  pub- 
lished, is  to  be  understood  as  extending  the  privileges 
specified  to  the  children  of  those  who  served  in  the  war. 
On  the  negative,  it  is  said,  the  children  are  not  expressly 
named  in  the  decree ;  and  very  young  children  are  not 
capable  of  enjoying  all  the  privileges  specified.  On  the 
other  side  it  is  said,  that  in  the  original  decree,  publish- 
ed for  the  same  general  purpose  on  a  former  occasion,  chil- 
dren were  expressly  named,  and  that  their  enjoying  these 
privileges  was  never  a  subject  of  complaint  with  any  por- 
tion of  the  community  ;  that  there  is  the  same  reason 
for  extending  the  privileges  to  children  now,  as  there 
was  before  ;  and  that  they  are  as  capable  of  being  bene- 
fitted by  them.  And  it  is  urged  finally,  that  it  was  the 
well-known  intention  of  the  king  in  this  case,  to  offer 
greater  privileges,  and  to  hold  up  higher  inducements  to 
public  service,  than  on  the  former  occasion.  The  ques- 
tion is,  how  the  decree,  published  in  the  last  case,  ought 
to  be  construed.  And  I  am  persuaded,  the  united  sen- 
tence of  the  community  would  be,  that  it  was  the  will  of 
the   king  in  the  last  case,  as  well  as  in  the  former,  to 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  59 

extend  the  privileges  specified  in  the  decree,  to  the   chil- 
dren of  those,  who  were  the  objects  of  the  royal  favor. 

This  construction  of  a  decree  or  charter,  securing 
privileges  to  a  particular  description  of  men,  and  this 
method  of  arriving  at  the  knowledge  of  what  was  the  in- 
tention of  the  king,  cannot  be  deemed  otherwise  than 
just  and  satisfactory.  And  who,  let  me  ask,  would  so 
dishonor  a  king  of  a  generous  heart,  as  to  attempt  to  take 
away  from  the  children  of  his  faithful  servants,  any  of 
those  privileges,  which  had,  by  his  express  direction,  been 
before  conferred  upon  them  in  the  same  circumstan- 
ces 1 

Now  all  the  considerations,  which  would  lead  us  to 
give  such  a  construction  to  the  decree  or  charter  here 
supposed,  exist  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism. Our  inquiry  is,  whether  the  language,  employed  in 
Christ's  commission  to  baptize,  would  naturally  be  un- 
derstood by  his  Apostles,  as  extending  to  the  children  of 
believers  ?  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  I  have  endeavour- 
ed to  make  it  appear,  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  which  can  be  supposed  to  have  had  any  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  were  in  favor  of  extend- 
ing baptism  to  children  ;  and  that,  before  they  could  un- 
derstand their  commission  in  any  other  manner,*  they 
must  have  ceased  to  be  children  of  Abraham,  and  must 
have  erased  from  their  minds  all  the  impressions  which 
had  been  made  upon  them  by  the  word  and  providence 
of  God. 

The  want  of  qualifications  in  children  is  a  subject 
which  deserves  particular  consideration.  It  is  suf- 
ficient, however,  for  our  present  purpose,  to  say,  that  a 
grant  of  privileges  is  often  made  to  children  prospective- 
ly and  conditionally.     In  such  cases,  some  mark  or  seal 


60  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

of  those  privileges,  such  as  may  be  applied  to  children, 
is  always  deemed  proper  ;  and  as  to  the  privileges  them- 
selves, it  is  the  common  understanding,  that  they  belong 
to  the  children  intended,  as  soon  as  they  become  capable  of 
enjoying  them,  and  have  complied  with  the  conditions  on 
which  they  are  granted. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  merely  those  circum- 
stances, which  would  be  likely  to  influence  the  Apostles 
in  their  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  their  commis- 
sion. The  reasoning  has  proceeded  independently  of 
the  consideration  of  any  other  means  which  they  might 
have  had  of  knowing  what  was  the  will  of  their  Lord. 

But  we  shall  not  stop  here,  but  shall  proceed  to  in- 
quire, whether  there  was  any  thing  in  the  previous  in- 
structions  of  Christ,  which  could  have  contributed  to  sat- 
isfy  the  Apostles  in  what  light  he  regarded  the  children 
of  his  people,  and  in  what  manner  he  would  have  them 
treated ;  or  which  could  have  had  any  influence  on  their 
minds  in  regard  to  the  subject  before  us. 

Here  it  is  not  to  be  concealed,  that  all  the  evidence 
we  can  have  is  circumstantial,  or  by  way  of  inference. 
But  such  evidence,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  often  as  sat- 
isfactory as  any  other. 

The  first  passage  I  shall  introduce  in  regard  to  this 
subject  is  Matt.  19:  13,  14.  "  Then  were  brought  to 
Jesus  little  children,,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on 
them  and  pray  ;  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.  But 
Jesus  said,  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to 
come  unto  me  ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them."  The  same  thing  is 
related  in  nearly  the  same  manner  by  Mark,  10:  13,  14, 
and  by  Luke,  18:  15,  16.  In  Luke  PQt'qti  is  used, 
which  denotes  young  children,  infants.     The  phrase  king- 


INFANT  BAPTISM  61 

dom  of  heaven,  or  kingdom  of  God,  as  Mark  and  Luke 
have  it,  unquestionably  signifies  here,  as  it  generally  does 
in  the  Evangelists,  the  Christian  church,  or  the  kingdom 
which  Christ  set  up  in  the  world,  in  distinction  from  the 
society  of  God's  people,  as  it  existed  under  the  former 
dispensation. 

That  part  of  this  passage  which  relates  more  directly 
to  our  subject,  is  the  declaration  at  the  close  ;  xtiiv  yuQ 
toiovtojv  ioilv  ri  fiuoiketcc  iwv  ovQavwv  ;  for  to  such 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs.  They  have  a  right  to  its 
blessings. 

The  common  rendering  of  the  phrase  is,  "  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;" — which  is  understood 
to  mean,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  consists,  or  is 
made  up  of  such.  But  the  rendering  which  I  have  given 
and  which  I  think  more  exactly  agreeable  to  the  sense  of 
the  original,  is  the  same  as  is  given  to  a  similar  phrase 
in  Matt.  5:  3,  19.  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  oti 
uuzwv  ianv  r]  fiaorida  toiv  ovyuvoZv,  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  to 
them  ;  they  have  a  right  to  it.  The  same  v.  10.  "  Bless- 
ed are  they  who  are  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake, 
bit  uviau>  Igilv  ))  iSuGiliiu  Twv  ovoavwv  ;  for  theirs  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;"  it  belongs  to  them. 

The  whole  verse  then  will  stand  thus  ;  "  Suffer  little 
children,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me ;  for  to 
such  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs."  They  are,  in  an 
important  sense,  entitled  to  its  privileges.* 

There  are  two  ways  of  interpreting  this  declaration. 
According  to  one  of  them,  the  declaration  relates  to  those 

*  The  particular  sense  in  which  the  privileges  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  belong  to  children  will  be  considered  in  tho  course  of 
these  Lectures. 

6* 


62  INFANT  BAPTISM 

who  resemble  little  children ;  that  is,  to  those  who  are  do- 
cile, and  free  from  ambition  and  malice.  Those  who 
adopt  this  sense  of  the  passage,  consider  the  declaration, 
"  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as  signifying,  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs,  not  to  little  children  them- 
selves, but  to  those  who  are  like  them  ; — to  real  Christians. 

The  principal  arguments  in  favor  of  this  interpreta- 
tion are  the  following. 

1.  It  may  be  said,  this  interpretation  is  suggested  by 
the  passages  in  which  Christ  professedly  undertakes  to 
show  what  character  his  disciples  must  possess,  from  the 
obvious  qualities  of  a  little  child  ;  as  in  Matk  18:  1 — 6. 
The  disciples,  influenced  by  feelings  of  ambition,  inquir- 
ed, who  ivas  the  greatest  in  Christ's  kingdom.  Christ 
called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst, 
and  said  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted, 
and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  humble 
himself  as  this  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  And  whoso  shall  receive  one  such 
little  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me.  But  whoso  shall 
offend  one  of  these  little  ones  who  believe  in  me,  it  were 
better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his 
neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the  midst  of  the  sea." 
Here  the  phrase,  natdlov  jotomov,  such  a  child,  is  used 
to  signify  one  who  resembles  a  child  ;  that  is,  a  disciple 
of  Christ ;  one  who  believes  in  Christ ;  as  appears  from 
the  next  verse.  When  therefore  Christ  says,  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  or  to  such,  that  is,  to  such  little  children,  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  ;  he  must  evidently  mean  the 
same,  as  in  the  place  where  he  speaks  expressly  of  those 
little  ones  who  believe. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  G3 

2.  This  interpretation  of  the  passage,  it  is  thought, 
may  be  defended  by  what  directly  follows  in  the  context, 
as  Mark  and  Luke  have  it.  According  to  these  Evan- 
gelists, after  Christ  says,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,"  he  immediately  adds : 
"  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a 
little  child,  shall  not  enter  therein."  This  is  evidently 
intended  to  point  out  the  character  of  his  disciples ;  and 
why  should  not  the  declaration,  "of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  same  ?  So 
Kuinoel  understands  it.  And  he  argues  in  favor  of  this 
sense  of  the  passage,  by  what  Christ  says  immediately  af- 
ter ;  "  whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God 
as  a  little  child,  shall  not  enter  therein." 

3.  There  is  a  general  reason  for  giving  the  passage 
this  sense,  which,  though  I  have  not  seen  it  distinctly 
mentioned  by  any  author,  seems  to  me  deserving  of  par- 
ticular consideration.  I  refer  to  the  fact,  that  Christ  so 
often  took  pains  to  instruct  the  people  as  to  the  nature  of 
his  kingdom,  and  the  necessary  qualifications  of  those 
wrho  should  be  admitted  to  enjoy  its  blessings,  and  insist- 
ed upon  the  preeminent  importance  of  their  being  like  a 
little  child,  or  their  being  free  from  pride  and  malice, 
and  possessing  a  humble,  teachable  disposition.  Now  it 
would  seem  that  a  declaration  of  Christ,  showing  to  whom 
his  kingdom  belongs,  would  most  naturally  be  intended 
to  refer  to  the  character  of  true  disciples. 

These,  so  far  as  I  know,  are  the  chief  reasons  which 
have  been  or  can  be  urged  in  favor  of  this  sense  of  the 
passage. 

But  there  are  several  considerations  of  no  small 
weight  against  this  interpretation,  and  in  favor  of  that 
which  makes  the  phrase,   "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 


64 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


heaven,"  or,  to  such  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs,  relate 
to  children,  such  as  those  that  were  brought  to  Christ. 

The  first  reason  I  shall  mention  is,  that  Toioviog  pro- 
perly denotes  the  nature  or  quality  of  the  thing  to  which 
it  is  applied.  "  Innuit  qualitatem  rei."  Schleusner. 
"  Such,  of  this  kind  or  sort."  Robinson's  Wahl.  Ac- 
cordingly, xwv  yug  loioviosv  iarlv  f^  ftaoiliict  twv  ovyu- 
vwv,  signifies  to  such  children,  (naidiojv  being  under- 
stood,) to  such  children  as  these  the  privileges  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  or  of  the  gospel  dispensation  belong.  The  chil- 
dren who  were  brought  to  Christ  must  have  been  includ- 
ed. For  if  those  privileges  belonged  to  such  children  as 
they  were,  why  not  to  them  ?  This  sense  of  the  word 
may  be  illustrated  from  its  current  use  in  similar  circum- 
stances in  the  New  Testament.  Matt.  9:  8.  "  The  mul- 
titude glorified  God,  who  had  given  such  power  to  men  ;" 
i^ovoiav  TOiuuTtjv,  power  of  such  a  kind,  or  so  glorious, — 
the  very  power,  which  had  just  been  displayed  being  in- 
tended. Mark  4:  33.  "  With  many  such  parables  spake 
he  unto  them  ;"  toiuvtuiq  nuQafiolu'tQ,  with  many  par- 
ables such  as  these.  Mark  6:  2, — "  that  such  mighty 
works  are  wrought  by  his  hands;"  dvvu^ag  toiuvtui. 
Luke  9:  9.  "  Who  is  this  of  whom  I  hear  such  things  ;" 
xoiuvia,  things  of  such  a  nature  as  these.  Luke  13:  2. 
"  Suppose  ye  that  these  Galileans  were  sinners  above  all 
the  Galileans,  because  they  suffered  such  things  ;"  toiuu- 
tu,  things  of  so  dreadful  a  nature  as  those  mentioned. 
John  9:  16.  "  How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  do  such 
miracles  1"  toiuvia  atjutlu,  miracles  of  so  remarkable 
a  nature  as  those  referred  to.  So  in  several  passages  in 
Romans,  lotuvra  signifies  such  things  as  those  before 
mentioned.  This  appears  to  be  the  sense  of  JOiovTog,  ex- 
cept when  it  is  employed  in  a  peculiar,  unusual  manner. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  C5 

Accordingly,  the  phrase,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  must  mean,  of  such  children  as  these,  the  very 
children  that  were  brought  to  Christ  being  included. 
The  other  sense  of  xwv  toiovtoov,  namely, — of  those  who 
are  like  these  children,  that  is,  of  those  who  are  not  real 
children,  but  docile,  humble  men,  would  be  altogether  an 
exception  from  the  prevailing  sense,  and  ought  not  to  be 
adopted,  without  very  imperious  reasons. 

To  satisfy  ourselves  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  mean- 
ing above  given  to  the  passage,  let  us  suppose  a  variation 
in  the  predicate,  while  the  subject,  which  is  signified  by 
roiovTtov,  remains  the  same.  Thus :  Suffer  little  chil- 
dren to  come  unto  me, — for  to  such  God  has  given  im- 
mortal souls ;  or,  I  came  to  save  such ;  or,  such  are  the 
objects  of  my  kindness,  and  are  to  be  trained  up  for  me. 
Here  it  would  be  evident  to  all,  that  what  was  said  was 
to  be  understood,  not  of  those  who  had  a  temper  resem- 
bling that  of  children,  but  of  children  themselves.  And 
it  must  be  so  in  the  case  under  consideration,  unless  we 
are  to  assume,  that  what  is  denoted  by  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  cannot  in  any  sense,  belong  to  children.  But  who 
will  venture  on  such  an  assumption  ? 

I  allow  that  nuidiov  tocovtov,  in  Matt.  18:  5,  may 
at  first  view  appear  to  favor  the  other  interpretation. 
But  a  careful  attention  to  all  the  circumsiances  will  lead, 
I  think,  to  a  different  conclusion.  "  Jesus  set  a  child  in 
the  midst  of  his  disciples,  and  said,  except  ye  be  convert- 
ed, and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Thus  he  directed  the  atten- 
tion of  those  around  him  to  the  character  of  a  true  dis- 
ciple. He  represented  a  disciple,  a  member  of  his  king- 
dom, to  be  like  a  little  child,  or  to  be  a  child  in  disposi- 
tion.    So  that  when,  in  the  next  verse,  he  says,  "  whoso- 


66  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ever  shall  receive  one  such  child"  the  way  was  prepared 
for  understanding  him  to  mean  a  person  of  a  lowly  dispo- 
sition, a  true  disciple.  A  person  of  this  character  had 
been  made  the  subject  of  discourse, — the  subject  on 
which  the  thoughts  of  all  were  fixed.  In  these  circum- 
stances, TTcudiov  towvtov  must  of  course  have  been  ta- 
ken to  mean  a  person  of  a  childlike  disposition.  And 
we  find  in  verse  6,  tva  twv  pixyojv,  one  of  these  little 
ones,  is  expressly  made  to  signify  one  who  believes  in 
Chrht.  He  was  speaking  of  such  a  one  under  the  im- 
age of  a  child.     And  so  he  calls  him  a  child. 

There  is  then  an  obvious  difference  between  the  two 
passages.  In  one,  the  attention  is  fixed  upon  the  char- 
acter of  a  Christian,  as  the  principal  subject.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  method  which  was  taken  to  illustrate  his 
character,  it  became  perfectly  natural  to  call  him  a  child, 
a  little  child.  TLuidiov  toiouiov,  thus  introduced,  must 
have  been  understood  to  signify  a  disciple  of  Christ. 
But,  in  the  other  passage,  the  subject  presented  before 
the  mind  was,  the  little  children  themselves.  They  were 
brought  to  Christ  for  his  blessing.  Upon  them  the  atten- 
tion of  all  was  fixed.  To  them  the  objection  of  the  dis- 
ciples related.  And  surely  what  Christ  said  in  the  way 
of  reply  to  that  objection,  must  also  have  related  to  them. 
We  rest  then  on  a  general  principle ;  namely ;  that 
words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense,  unless  there 
is  a  plain  and  satisfactory  reason  for  taking  them  in  a 
metaphorical  sense.  In  Matt.  18:  5,  there  is  such  a  rea- 
son.    In  Matt.  19:  14,  there  is  not. 

My  second  reason  in  favor  of  the  interpretation  we  are 
now  considering  is,  that  the  declaration,  "of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  is  expressly  made  the  re ason  for  suf- 
fering little  children  themselves  to  come  to  him.     "  Suffer 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  67 

little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me,  zujv 
yag  xovovkmv,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  classic  authors,  yag 
is  commonly  used  to  denote  the  reason  of  what  has  been 
asserted  or  implied.  The  declaration,  "for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  according  to  the  common  ac- 
ceptation of  the  words,  must  then  be  understood  to  be 
the  reason  for  suffering  the  little  children  themselves  to 
come  to  him.  But  how  could  this  be  a  reason  for  suf- 
fering the  little  children  to  come  to  Christ,  if  they  did 
not  belong  to  his  kingdom,  but  only  certain  others 
who  resembled  them  1  When,  however,  I  say  that  their 
belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  given  as  the  rea- 
son why  they  should  be  suffered  to  come  to  Christ,  I  do 
not  rely  merely  on  the  causative  conjunction,  yag  ;  which, 
though  it  is  commonly  used  in  this  sense,  is  sometimes 
used  in  a  different  sense.  For  even  if  this  conjunction 
were  omitted,  the  very  collocation  of  the  words,  and  the 
obvious  relation  of  the  ideas  contained  in  the  former  and 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence,  would  clearly  suggest, 
that  the  fact  last  mentioned  was  meant  to  be  given  as  the 
reason  of  what  was  before  said.  The  disciples  forbid 
little  children  to  come  to  Christ.  He  rebukes  them,  and 
says, — Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me  ;  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Now  who  could  tell  why  this 
last  should  be  said,  if  not  meant  to  be  a  reason  for  suf- 
fering the  little  children  to  come  1  And  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  the  little  children  did  come,  and  that  they 
came  too  in  consequence  of  that  very  direction  which 
Christ  gave  respecting  them,  and  which  was  accompa- 
nied with  such  a  reason. 

These  two  considerations ;    namely ;    the  prevailing 
use  of  the  word  toiovicov,  and  the  assigning  of  the  last 


68  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

circumstance  mentioned  in  the  sentence,  as  the  reason  of 
the  direction  just  before  given,  are  of  great  weight,  being 
the  prominent  considerations  both  of  a  philological  and 
logical  nature,  which  relate  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
text.  And  if  the  last  interpretation  given  is  not  the 
right  one  ;  then  the  word  xqiovtwv  is  not  here  used  in 
its  common  sense,  and  the  reason  assigned  by  Christ  for 
suffering  the  little  children  to  come  to  him,  seems  to  have 
no  weight  or  pertinence. 

Now  considering  that  this  interpretation  of  the  text 
is  supported  by  such  considerations,  we  certainly  ought 
not  to  reject  it,  and  to  adopt  another,  without  very  strong 
and  conclusive  reasons.     But  do  such  reasons  exist  1 

Let  us  first  inquire,  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  which  is  conclusive  against  this  inter- 
pretation. Is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  Christian 
Church  such,  as  would  make  it  inconsistent  to  suppose 
that  it  belongs,  in  any  sense,  to  children  ?  I  answer  in 
the  negative  ,  and  the  propriety  of  this  answer  may  be 
made  to  appear  in  two  ways.  First ;  Christ's  kingdom 
may  belong  to  little  children,  or  they  may  be  members  of 
it,  in  the  highest  sense.  They  may  have  been  designat- 
ed as  heirs  of  salvation,  and  the  grace  of  God  may  have 
sealed  them  for  heaven.  No  one  can  show  that  the  ac- 
tual salvation  of  little  children  is  impossible,  or  improba- 
ble. 

But  secondly  ;  without  supposing  that  all  children, 
or  even  all  the  children  of  believers,  are  actually  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  kingdom  in  the  highest  sense  ;  we  may 
consider  them  as  being  related  to  it,  and  entitled  to  its 
privileges,  in  a  lower,  though  a  very  important  sense. 
We  may  consider  them  as  sustaining  a  very  near  relation 
to  their  own  parents,  and  through  them  to  the  church. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  69 

They  may  have  a  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  church, 
somewhat  as  children  may  have  a  right  to  the  privileges 
of  a  particular  civil  community,  of  which  their  parents 
are  members.  The  children  of  pious  parents  may  have 
such  a  connexion  with  the  church,  as  will  secure  to  them 
special  advantages  for  moral  improvement,  and  a  pros- 
pect specially  favorable  to  their  final  salvation.  It  may 
be  the  design  of  God,  that  the  Christian  religion  should 
be  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another,  and  per- 
petuated in  the  world,  generally,  by  the  pious  education 
of  those  who  are  the  children  of  the  church,  rendered 
successful  by  the  divine  blessing. 

Now  this  relation  of  children  to  the  church,  which  I 
consider  to  be  a  matter  of  fact,  is  of  vast  importance  to 
the  interests  of  religion ;  and  resulting,  as  it  evidently 
does,  from  the  constitution  of  human  beings,  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  God  respecting  his  kingdom,  it  is  deserving 
of  special  notice.  Such  notice  Christ  seems  to  have  giv- 
en it  in  the  passage  under  consideration.  According  to 
the  views  which  have  now  been   suggested,  this  passage 

may  be  paraphrased  thus  : These  little  children,  whom 

you  would  hinder  from  being  brought  to  me  for  my  bless- 
ing, are  objects  of  my  kindest  regard.  They,  and  such 
as  they,  stand  in  a  near  relation  to  my  church.  The 
kingdom,  which  I  am  setting  up,  is  not  to  overlook  them, 
but  to  embrace  and  cherish  them.  Peculiar  favor  was 
shown  to  children  under  the  former  dispensation ;  think 
not  that  less  is  to  be  shown  them  under  my  reign.  Look 
not  upon  them,  therefore,  icith  feelings  of  indifference. 
Strive  not  to  deprive  them  of  my  blessing.  Suffer  them  to 
come  unto  me;  for  to  such  children  the  privileges  of  the 
gospel  dispensation  belong. 

My  conclusion  is,  that  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  na- 
7 


70  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ture  of  the  case,  which  makes  it  impossible  or  inconsis- 
tent that  little  children  should,  in  some  important  sense, 
hold  a  relation  to  the  church,  or  that  the  privileges  of  the 
Christian  dispensation  should  belong  to  them  ;  there  is 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  which  can  furnish  any 
valid  objection  against  that  interpretation  of  the  text, 
which  I  have  undertaken  to  support. 

Secondly.  Is  there  any  conclusive  objection  against 
this  interpretation  from  the  other  passage  referred  to, 
that  is,  Matt.  18:  1 — 6,  in  which  Christ  professedly 
makes  use  of  a  little  child  to  inculcate  upon  his  disci- 
ples the  importance  of  humility  ?  There  can,  I  think,  be 
no  such  objection,  because  the  words  of  Christ  recorded 
here,  were  spoken  on  an  occasion,  and  for  a  purpose,  entire- 
ly different  from  those  of  the  passage  we  have  been  examin- 
ing. There,  little  children  were  brought  to  Christ.  His 
disciples  wished  to  exclude  them.  But  Christ  disapprov- 
ed of  their  conduct,  and  gave  them  a  reason  why  the 
children  should  be  permitted  to  come ;  and  the  reason 
was,  that  to  such  as  they  his  kingdom  belonged.  But  in 
Matt.  18:  1 — 6,  the  disciples  manifested  the  workings  of 
ambition  ;  and  Christ,  to  teach  them  humility,  took  a 
little  child,  and  set  him  before  them,  and  told  them  that 
they  must  become  unambitious,  humble,  like  that  child, 
or  they  could  not  be  admitted  into  his  kingdom.  In  this 
place,  the  character  required  of  his  disciples  was  the  ob- 
ject and  the  only  object  Christ  had  in  view.  He  brought 
forward  a  little  child  merely  to  illustrate  that  character. 
In  the  other  place,  the  children  themselves  were  the  objects 
of  attention,  and  the  evident  design  of  Christ  was  to 
show  how  he  regarded  them,  and,  consequently,  how  he 
would  have  them  regarded  and  treated  by  his  disciples. 
Now  because  on  one  occasion,  it  was  the  object  of  Christ 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


74 


in  all  that  he  said  to  inculcate  humility  upon  his  follow- 
ers ;  we  cannot  surely  infer,  that  this  and  this  only  was 
his  object  on  another  occasion,  which  was  in  itself,  and  in 
all  its  circumstances,  different. 

But,  thirdly  ;  it  is  said, — and  this  is  the  last  and  the 
greatest  difficulty  I  shall  attempt  to  remove, — that  on  the 
very  occasion,  on  which  Christ  declared  respecting  little 
children,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and 
immediately  after  he  had  declared  this,  he  inculcated  the 
same  lesson  of  humility,  and  in  nearly  the  same  way,  as 
on  the  other  occasion.  See  Mark  10:  15.  "  Whosoev- 
er shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
wg  Tiaidiov,  shall  not  enter  therein." 

My  answer  is,  that  Christ  was  accustomed  to  make  use 
of  all  the  means  which  were  at  hand,  to  inculcate  duty 
upon  his  disciples,  especially  the  duty  of  being  humble  ; 
and  that,  after  he  had  shown  his  affection  for  the  little 
children  who  were  brought  to  him,  and  had  declared  that 
the  privileges  of  his  kingdom  belonged  to  them,  it  was 
perfectly  according  to  his  usual  manner,  to  introduce  an- 
other subject,  and  by  means  of  the  lovely  children,  who 
were  then  before  him,  and  who  were  entitled  to  such  con- 
sideration, to  teach  his  disciples,  what  disposition  they 
must  possess.  It  was  clearly  another  subject,  though  in- 
troduced on  the  occasion  of  the  children  being  brought 
to  him.  Jesus  chose  that  such  an  occasion  should  not 
pass  without  profit  to  his  disciples,  whom  he  doubtless  saw 
to  be  in  special  need  of  the  instruction  then  given  them. 

There  is  also  a  general  consideration  which  was 
mentioned  in  the  former  Lecture,  and  which  should 
not  be  overlooked  in  the  interpretation  of  the  text  now 
before  us,  and  which  is  of  special  use  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  many  a  doubtful  passage  in  the   Evangelists,   and 


72  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

in  the  Epistles  ;  namely  ;  that  it  was  addressed  to  Tews. 
We  have  already  considered  what  influence  this  circum- 
stance must  have  had  on  the  manner,  in  which  the  Apos- 
tles would  understand  the  commission  they  received  to 
proselyte  and  baptize.  Why  should  we  suppose  it  had 
less  influence  here  1  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  a 
dispensation,  under  which  the  children  of  God's  people 
were  considered  and  treated,  as  belonging  to  their  sacred 
community,  and  as  entitled  to  inherit  its  blessings.  Their 
Scriptures  plainly  required  that  they  should  be  treated 
in  this  manner.  But  on  the  particular  occasion  now  re- 
ferred to,  the  disciples  seem  to  have  forgotten  this  prin- 
ciple. They  treated  the  little  children  who  were  brought 
to  Christ,  as  though  it  had  escaped  their  recollection, 
that  children  were  the  objects  of  God's  favor,  and  that 
they  sustained  so  high  a  relation  to  the  society  of  his 
people.  Had  there  not  been  something  faulty  in  the 
feelings  of  the  disciples,  they  would  not  have  done  such 
a  thing,  as  to  forbid  the  children  to  be  brought  to  Christ 
for  his  blessing ;  and,  most  certainly,  they  would  not 
have  incurred  his  rebuke.  The  answer  of  Christ  was 
perfectly  suited  to  correct  their  mistake,  and  to  teach 
them  what,  as  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  they  would  easi- 
ly understand  ;  namely  ;  that  children  were  to  have  the 
same  relation  to  God  and  his  people  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  as  before.  For  I  cannot  but  insist  upon  it, 
that,  as  the  disciples  in  that  case  were  chargeable  with 
overlooking  the  importance  of  little  children,  and  treating 
them  with  a  culpable  indifference ;  at  least,  with  not 
manifesting  a  suitable  regard  for  them;  it  is  perfectly 
natural  to  understand  what  Christ  said  in  reply,  as  hav- 
ing been  intended  to  correct  their  mistake,  and  to  show 
in  what  light  children  were  to  be  regarded  under  his  reign. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  73 

There  is  still  one  more  consideration  I  wish  to  ex- 
hibit, which  is,  that  the  sense  I  have  given  to  the  pas- 
sage in  Matt,  may  receive  support  from  what  St.  Paul 
says  respecting  children,  1  Cor.  7:  14.  "  Else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  they  are  holy."  This 
text  will  be  considered  more  particularly  in  the  next 
Lecture.  At  present  my  object  is  simply  to  show,  that, 
being  understood  according  to  the  most  respectable  and 
judicious  commentators,  it  has  an  exact  correspondence 
with  my  interpretation  of  the  text  Matt.  19:  14. 

"  Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they 
holy ;"  vvv  di  ayiu  iaziv.  According  to  Schleusner, 
this  means,  but  now  arc  they  held  as  members  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church ;  "  Jam  vero  habentur  membra  ecclesiae 
Christianas. "  At  the  head  of  the  article  under  which 
this  text  is  quoted,  he  says,  He  is  called  holy,  who  is  to 
be  numbered  with  the  society  of  Christians.  Wahl,  re- 
ferring to  this  place,  says,  it  is  spoken  of  one  icho  is  in 
any  way  connected  with  Christians,  and  therefore  to  be 
reckoned  among  them.  According  to  these  and  other 
distinguished  authors,  the  apostle  Paul,  who  so  perfectly 
understood  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  represented  children,  as  those  who  were 
to  be  numbered  with  the  society  of  Christians,  and  to  be 
regarded  as  holding  an  important  relation  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  even  when  only  one  of  their  parents  was  a 
believer.  This  must  have  involved  the  general  principle, 
that  the  children  of  believers  were  considered  as  belong- 
ing to  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  or  the  Christian  church. 
And  this  is  the  same  thing  as  that  which  I  have  under- 
stood to  be  taught  by  the  words  of  Christ ;  "  Of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  declaration  of  Christ, 
and  that  of  the  apostle,  had  relation  to  the   same  sub- 


74  INFANT  BAPTISM 

ject.  They  were  both  intended  to  show  in  what  light  the 
children  of  believers  were  to  be  regarded.  This  compar- 
ison of  the  two  texts  affords  additional  satisfaction  as  to 
the  true  meaning  of  each. 

I  have  thus  gone  through  with  an  examination  of  the 
remarkable  passage  in  Matt.  19:  14,  and,  without  relying 
on  the  opinions  of  others,  have  carefully  attended  to  those 
considerations  on  both  sides,  which  appeared  to  be  of 
particular  consequence  to  a  right  interpretation.  I  would 
not  suffer  myself  to  feel  any  undue  confidence  in  my  own 
opinion  on  such  a  subject  as  this ;  and  I  would  certain- 
ly treat  with  great  respect  those  who  adopt  a  different 
opinion.  Having  endeavoured  impartially  to  exhibit 
whatever  appertains  to  a  fair  discussion  of  the  subject,  I 
very  cheerfully  refer  the  whole  to  the  judgement  of  en- 
lightened and  candid  men. 

The  most  respectable  authors  are  divided.  Accord- 
ing to  Rosenmuller  and  Kuinoel,  Christ  taught  merely 
that  his  disciples  must  resemble  little  children  in  humili- 
ty and  gentleness,  and  not  that  children  themselves  be- 
longed to  his  kingdom.  But  many  English  writers  de- 
fend with  various  arguments  the  sense  which  I  have  giv- 
en. And  I  find  Storr  and  Flatt  on  the  same  side.  And 
they  do  not  merely  give  their  opinion,  although  that 
would  be  entitled  to  great  respect ;  but  what  is  better, 
they  give  a  reason  for  their  opinion ;  and  that  reason  is 
the  very  one,  to  which  I  have  attached  the  highest  im- 
portance in  the  preceding  discussion.  The  passage  re- 
lating to  this  text  is  the  following.*  "  T(7y,>  yuo  rotov- 
Ttov  toxiv  tj  fiaoiXsia  roj*/  ovyavcov ;  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.     Children  must  have  been  included 

*  See  Storr's  Bib.  Theol.  Book  3.  §  68. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  75 

in  the  word,  such ;  because  the  proposition,  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  belongs  to  humble  adults, — to  those  who  have  as 
little  pride  as  children,  would  be  no  reason  why  children 
should  not  be  prevented  from  coming  to  Jesus." 

Now  for  the  application  of  this  passage,  thus  inter- 
preted, to  the  subject  in  hand.  No  one  pretends  that  the 
children  spoken  of  in  this  passage,  were  brought  to  Christ 
for  Baptism,  or  that  the  passage  affords  direct  proof  of 
Infant  Baptism.  Still  it  may  have  an  important  bearing 
on  the  subject.  Our  inquiry  is,  in  what  way  the  Apostles 
must  have  understood  the  commission  which  Christ  gave 
them,  to  •proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations  ;  particularly, 
whether  they  would  understand  the  children  of  proselytes 
to  be  included.  After  attending  to  various  circumstan- 
ces directly  pertaining  to  the  subject,  and  finding  what 
reason  we  have  to  think,  that  the  Apostles  must  have  un- 
derstood the  commission  to  baptize  as  extending  to  the 
children  of  believers ;  we  proceeded  to  inquire,  whether 
Christ,  the  author  of  the  new  dispensation,  had  previous- 
ly given  any  instructions,  which  could  have  an  influence 
on  their  minds  in  regard  to  this  subject ;  particularly, 
whether  he  had  said  any  thing  to  show  in  what  light  he 
regarded  little  children.  We  fixed  on  the  passage  in 
Matt.  19:  14,  as  answering  this  inquiry  ;  that  is,  as  show- 
ing, that  the  children  of  God's  people  were  considered  as 
belonging  to  their  community,  just  as  they  had  belonged 
to  the  community  of  his  people  under  the  former  dispen- 
sation. Formerly,  they  were  considered  a  holy  seed,  con- 
secrated to  God,  and  blessed  with  special  privileges,  in 
consequence  of  being  the  children  of  his  people.  Christ 
here  seems  to  teach,  that  they  were  to  be  considered  in 
the  same  light  and  treated  in  the  same  manner  under  his 
reign.     When  therefore  the  Apostles  received  a  commis- 


76  ItfFANT  BAPTISM. 

sion  to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations,  they  had  this 
special  reason  for  understanding  it  as  extending  to  chil- 
dren, that  Christ  himself  had  taught  them  before,  that 
children  were  to  belong  to  his  kingdom,  just  as  they  had 
belonged  to  the  society  of  God's  people  under  the  former 
economy.  And  if,  wherever  the  Christian  religion  should 
be  propagated,  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  established,  the 
children  of  believers  were,  according  to  his  instructions, 
to  enjoy,  in  an  important  sense,  the  privileges  of  that 
kingdom,  and  to  be  connected  with  the  society  of  the  dis~ 
ciples  ;  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  to  receive 
the  mark  of  discipleship.  If  they  were  to  be  regarded  as- 
holy,  that  is,  consecrated  to  God ;  they  were  undoubtedly 
to  receive  the  sign  of  consecration. 

I  cannot  deny  myself  the  pleasure  of  closing  this  Lec- 
ture with  a  passage  from  Knapp's  Theology,  under  the 
head  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  where  he  shews  that  he  gave 
the  same  sense  to  the  text  in  Matt.  19:  14,  and  reasoned 
from  it  in  the  same  manner,  as  I  have  done. 

"  That  Infant  Baptism,  considered  as  a  solemn  rite 
of  consecration,  cannot  be  opposed  to  the  design  and 
will  of  Christ,  may  be  concluded  from  his  own  declara- 
tion, Matt.  19:  14.  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me  and  forbid  them  not;  xoZv  yuQ  roiovrwv  iozlp  ij  t3aoi- 
Isia  zov  fteov  ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God* 
This  is  indeed  no  command  for  Infant  Baptism.  But 
if  children  can  and  should  have  a  share  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  and  in  all  Christian  privileges,  ((juotlfiu  too 
■&60V,)  it  cannot  be  improper  to  introduce  them  into  the 
Christian  church  by  this  solemn  rite  of  initiation.     And 

*  In  another  place  Knapp  says  ;  "  From  the  words  of  Christ, 
Matt.  19:  14,  '  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  it  is  clear  that  he 
adjudges  it  to  children." 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  77 

if  according  to  the  design  of  Christ,  children,  from  their 
earliest  youth  up,  are  to  have  a  share  in  the  rites  and 
privileges  of  Christians  ;  it  must  also  be  agreeable  to  his 
will,  solemnly  to  introduce  them,  by  this  rite  of  conse- 
cration, into  the  nursery  of  his  disciples.  Compare  1 
Cor.  7:  14." 


LECTURE  V 


Whether  there  was  any  thing  in  the  conduct  of  the  Apostles,  or  any  declaration 
in  their  writings,  to  aid  us  in  determining  how  they  understood  their  commis- 
sion.— Household  Baptism. — ICor.  7:  14. 

We  have  already  inquired,  whether  there  was  any 
thing  in  the  particular  instructions  of  Christ  to  his  Apos- 
tles, previous  to  the  final  commission  he  gave  them, 
which  would  naturally  lead  them  to  understand  that  com- 
mission, as  intended  to  include  infant  children.  We 
shall  now  inquire,  whether  we  can  be  assisted  in  deter- 
mining how  they  understood  that  commission,  by  any 
thing  in  the  conduct  of  the  Apostles  ichile  executing  their 
commission,  or  any  declaration  made  in  their  writings. 

The  mode  of  reasoning  which  I  have  adopted,  does 
not  require,  and  does  not  lead  us  to  expect  any  thing  like 
a  positive  declaration,  that  they  baptized  infants,  or  con- 
sidered them  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  For  if  it  was 
so,  that  the  Apostles  and  first  Christians  had  a  united  and 
perfect  persuasion,  that  children  were  to  hold  a  place 
in  the  community  of  God's  people  under  the  new  dispen- 
sation, similar  to  what  they  had  held  before,  and  that  they 
were  to  receive  the  new  mark  of  special  relation  to  God. 
as  they  had  received  the  old  ;  then  there  was  no  more- 
occasion  for  the  Apostles  to  mention  the  fact  that  chil- 
dren were  baptized,  than  there  was  for  Joshua,  and  Sam- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  79 

uel,  and  all  the  writers  of  the  history  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament,  to  mention  at  every  period,  that  children 
eight  days  old  were  circumcised.  And  the  case  might  be 
exactly  so  at  the  present  time.  Pedobaptist  ministers  or 
missionaries  might  write  a  history  of  their  ministry,  and 
the  success  attending  it,  for  many  years,  without  any 
mention  of  the  baptism  of  children.  But  we  should  con- 
sider such  an  omission  as  this,  to  be  no  proof  that  chil- 
dren were  not  baptized.  For  it  would  be  obvious,  that 
such  ministers  might  be  in  circumstances,  which  would 
render  it  quite  unnecessary  for  them  to  make  any  ex- 
press mention  of  Infant  Baptism.  It  might  be  that  no 
one  acquainted  with  them  could  have  the  least  doubt 
respecting  their  practice.  At  the  present  day,  indeed, 
when  Christians  every  where  are  divided  on  this  subject, 
such  silence  might  not  be  what  we  should  look  for. 
But  were  all  Christians  united  in  the  practice  of  Infant 
Baptism,  as  we  apprehend  the  primitive  Christians  were, 
there  might  be  no  occasion  whatever  to  make  particular 
mention  of  it.  In  all  such  cases,  we  should  understand 
the  practice  of  ministers  to  be  according  to  what  we 
knew  of  their  opinions.  If  they  were  Pedobaptists,  we 
should  have  no  doubt  of  their  being  in  the  practice  of 
baptizing  children,  although  in  some  brief  account  of 
their  ministry,  they  should  say  nothing  about  such  a  prac- 
tice. 

Although  the  evidence,  to  which  I  now  invite  your  at- 
tention, is  incidental,  or  circumstantial ;  it  is  not  on  that 
account  the  less  worthy  of  consideration.  Indeed  it  can- 
not be  denied,  that  an  undesigned  reference  or  allusion 
to  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  or  the  declaration  of 
some  principle  or  fact  implying  it,  may  afford  evidence 
as  satisfactory,  as  a  direct  assertion  of  the  Apostles. 


80  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

After  these  introductory  remarks,  let  us  proceed  to 
the  subject  above  stated.  My  position  is,  that,  although 
there  is  no  passage  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  or  in  the 
Epistles,  which  expressly  declares  that  the  Apostles  bap- 
tized children,  or  which  directly  affirms  that  they  un- 
derstood their  commission  to  baptize,  as  extending  to 
children  ;  there  are  passages  which  would  seem  to  im- 
ply this,  and  which  have  a  more  natural  and  consistent 
sense  on  the  supposition  that  Infant  Baptism  was  the 
Apostolic  practice,  than  on  the  contrary  supposition.  I 
shall  first  refer  to  the  passages  which  speak  of  the  bap- 
tism of  households,  or  families.  It  is  said  of  Lydia, 
Acts  16:  14,  15,  that  the  Lord  opened  her  heart  to  attend 
to  the  instructions  of  Paul,  and  that  she  was  baptized, 
and  her  household.  And  in  the  same  chapter,  v.  33,  we 
are  told  that  the  jailer  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  that 
is,  all  who  belonged  to  him,  straightway ,  or  immediately. 
And  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  1:  16,  "I  baptized  the  household 
of  Stephanas." 

The  reasoning  from  such  passages  is  this.  The  word 
oixla,  rendered  house,  or  household,  had  been  commonly 
used  to  comprise  children  with  their  parents,  much  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  word  family  or  household  is 
used  now.  And  it  is  well  known,  that  it  had  been 
the  manner  of  the  people  of  God,  to  consider  and  treat 
their  families,  as  consecrated  to  God,  and  intimately 
associated  with  them  in  the  concerns  of  religion.  As, 
therefore,  we  find  that  the  Apostles,  who  were  accus- 
tomed to  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  to 
the  practice  there  enjoined,  speak  familiarly  of  their 
baptizing  households,  or  families  ;  it  seems  no  more  than 
reasonable  to  suppose,  that  those  families,  generally,  con- 
tained children,  and  that  those  children  were  baptized. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  81 

And  if  this  was  the  case,  the  Apostles  must  have  under- 
stood their  commission,  as  including  children.  It  will  be 
observed,  that  whenever  the  Apostles  speak  of  baptizing 
households,  they  speak  of  it  without  any  restriction.  Now 
is  this  a  circumstance  ever  to  be  met  with  in  histories, 
written  by  those  ministers  who  do  not  baptize  infants  ? 
For  them  to  speak  familiarly,  and  without  qualification, 
of  baptizing  families,  would  be  inconsistent  with  their 
views,  and  their  practice.  As  to  the  instances  mention- 
ed in  the  New  Testament  of  the  baptism  of  families,' — 
who  has  any  right  to  say,  that  none  of  those  families  con- 
tained any  but  adults, — and  adult  believers  ?  Who  can 
think  this  in  any  degree  probable  1 

To  show  more  clearly  what  is  the  natural  import  of 
the  account  given  in  the  New  Testament  of  family  bap- 
tisms, suppose  the  following  case.  Two  missionaries 
have  for  a  number  of  years  been  successfully  laboring  for 
the  conversion  of  a  particular  tribe  of  savages  in  the 
wilderness  of  America.  We  have  heard  of  their  labors, 
and  of  their  success,  and  have  rejoiced  in  it,  but  have 
never  learned,  and  have  never  to  this  day  inquired, 
whether  they  practised  Infant  Baptism,  or  not.  For 
special  reasons,  this  now  becomes  a  subject  of  inquiry ; 
and  the  only  means  of  information  which  we  have  at 
hand,  is  a  brief  history  which  those  missionaries  have 
published  of  their  labors.  In  that  history,  which  is  now 
subjected  to  a  careful  examination,  we  find  that  they 
speak  of  several  instances  in  which  individuals  embraced 
Christianity  and  received  baptism.  And  they  inform 
us,  that  at  such  a  time  they  baptized  one  of  the  chiefs, 
and  his  family  ;  and  that,  at  another  time,  they  baptized 
such  a  man,  and  all  his;  and  again,  another  man  and 
liis  household.  This  is  all  the  information  they  give. 
8 


82  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

They  mention,  without  explanation,  the  baptism  of  sever- 
al persons,  and  their  households,  and  so  make  family-bap- 
tisms a  noticeable  circumstance  in  the  history  of  their 
mission.  Would  not  such  a  circumstance  lead  us  to  think 
it  probable  that  they  practised  Infant  Baptism  1  Be  sure, 
it  might  be  said,  that  they  do  not  expressly  mention  the 
baptism  of  little  children,  and  that  all  who  belonged  to 
those  families  may  have  been  adults,  and  adult  believers. 
This,  I  admit,  would  be  possible.  But  would  it  be  pro- 
bable ?  Would  those,  who  do  not  baptize  children,  be 
likely  to  speak  in  this  manner  ?  Should  we  not  think  it 
very  singular,  to  find  accounts  of  family-baptisms  in  a 
history  of  Baptist  Missions  1 

The  circumstance  under  consideration,  it  is  readily 
conceded,  cannot  be  made  a  decisive  argument.  I  do 
not  offer  it  as  such.  But  does  not  the  account,  which 
the  Apostles  give  of  the  baptism  of  households,  perfectly 
agree  with  the  supposition,  that  they  were  in  the  prac- 
tice of  baptizing  children  %  If  we  admit  that  they  under- 
stood children  to  be  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  as  they 
had  before  been  of  circumcision  ;  would  not  such  an  ac- 
count be  just  what  we  should  expect  ?  But  would  it  be 
so,  if  we  should  not  admit  this  ? 

If  any  one  should  ask  whether  the  families  referred  to 
might  not  contain  servants,  as  well  as  children  ;  and 
whether  we  are  to  suppose  that  such  servants  were  bap- 
tized, as  the  servants  of  Abraham  were  circumcised  ; — 
my  answer  would  be,  that,  for  ought  we  know,  there 
might  be  servants,  and  that  if  the  servants  stood  in  as  near 
a  relation  to  their  Christian  masters,  and  were  to  be  as 
much  under  their  pious  instruction  and  guidance,  as  the 
servants  of  Abraham  were  under  his,  I  see  no  reason 
why  they  should  not  have   been  consecrated  to  God  by 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


83 


baptism.  But  if  servants  stand  in  a  widely  different  re- 
lation to  Christian  masters  from  that  of  Abraham's  ser- 
vants to  him  ;  that  different  relation  surely  cannot  entitle 
them  to  the  same  treatment. 

I  have  already  referred  to  the  text,  1  Cor.  7:  14,  as 
affording  collateral  support  to  the  construction  which  was 
given  to  Matt.  19:  14.  I  propose  now  to  give  this  text 
a  more  particular  examination.  After  suggesting  with 
perfect  freedom  the  thoughts  which  have  occurred  to  me 
respecting  the  sense  of  this  passage,  I  shall  most  cheer- 
fully leave  you  to  adopt  such  a  conclusion,  as  shall  appear 
to  you  most  consistent  and  just. 

There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  text,  which  de- 
serve special  notice.  The  first  I  shall  mention  is  that 
of  Dr  Gill,  a  very  distinguished  Antipedobaptist  writer  ; 
who  expresses  what  he  understands  to  be  the  meaning 
of  the  text,  in  the  following  paraphrase.  The  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband :  else  loere  your  children 
unclean  ;  but  now  are  they  holy.  The  parties  spoken 
of  "  are  duly,  rightly,  and  legally  espoused  to  each  other ; 
— otherwise,  that  is,  if  they  are  not  truly  married  to  each 
other,  the  children  must  be  spurious,  and  not  legitimate 
Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy ; 
that  is,  if  the  marriage  contracted  between  them  was  nojt 
valid,  and  if,  since  the  conversion  of  one  of  them,  it  can 
never  be  thought  to  be  good ;  then  the  children  begotten 
and  born,  either  when  both  were  infidels,  or  since  one  of 
them  was  converted,  must  be  unlawfully  begotten,  base- 
born,  and  not  a  genuine,  legitimate  offspring  ;  but  as  the 
parents  are  lawfully  married,  the  children  born  of  them 
are  in  a  civil  and  legal  sense  holy,  that  is,  legitimate." 

The  most  powerful  argument  which  has  been  urged 


84  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

in  favor  of  this  interpretation,  and  one  attended  with 
much  plausibility  is,  that  it  seems,  at  first  view,  to  agree 
with  the  object  of  the  Apostle,  who  directs  that  a  believer 
should  not  put  away  an  unbelieving  partner  ;  and  to  make 
this  direction  appear  just,  asserts,  as  Dr  Gill  understands 
him,  that  the  believing  and  unbelieving  partners  are  law- 
fully joined  in  marriage ;  and  that,  were  it  not  so,  their 
children  would  be  illegitimate  ;  but  that,  in  consequence 
of  the  lawfulness  of  the  connexion  between  the  parents, 
their  children  are  legitimate. 

In  reply  to  this,  it  may  be  said,  that  a  different  sense 
will  agree,  to  say  the  least,  equally  well  with  the  mani- 
fest object  of  the  Apostle.  The  very  direction,  that  an 
unbelieving  husband  or  wife  should  not  be  put  away  by 
the  other  party,  implies,  that  there  is  a  matrimonial  con- 
nexion between  them,  and  that  the  connexion  is  lawful. 
But  the  Apostle  not  only  gives  this  direction,  but  enfor- 
ces it  by  a  proper  reason  ;  and  the  reason  he  suggests,  as 
I  understand  it,  is  this;  that  the  unbelieving  husband  or 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  partner  in  such  a  sense, 
that,  in  consequence  of  it,  their  children  are  separated 
from  heathenism,  consecrated  to  God,  and  brought  into 
the  society  of  Christians.  This  was  then,  and  would  be 
now,  a  consideration  of  great  weight, — much  greater,  I 
should  think,  than  the  mere  legitimacy  of  the  children. 
This  consideration  did  indeed  presuppose  their  legitima- 
cy ;  but  it  had  this  important  point  in  addition,  namely, 
that  the  children  were  a  holy  seed,  consecrated  to  God,  and 
entitled  to  the  special  privileges  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. Now  this  consideration,  as  it  includes  the  other, 
and  has  so  much  in  addition,  must  be  a  more  powerful 
reason  to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  direction,  than 
the  other  taken  by  itself.     So  that,  in  respect  to  the  de- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  85 

sign  of  the  Apostle,  and  the  reasoning  employed,  Dr 
Gill's  interpretation  has  certainly  no  advantage  over  the 
other. 

But  there  are  considerations  of  great  weight  against 
Dr  Gill's  construction. 

The  first  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  usus  loquendi. 
It  puts  a  sense  upon  the  words  i)ylaGxui  and  ay  to:,  which 
is  widely  different  from  the  prevailing  sense  ;  yea,  differ- 
ent from  the  sense  which  they  have  in  any  other  passages 
of  Scripture.  And  Dr  Gill  himself  does  not  pretend 
that  either  of  the  words  is  used  in  the  sense  he  contends 
for,  in  any  other  text.  He  does  indeed  attempt  to  sup- 
port his  rendering  by  referring  to  the  use  of  the  Hebrew 
UHp  in  the  Talmudic  books,  where  it  has  the  sense  of 
espousing  merely.  But  Schleusner  objects  to  the  argu- 
ment, and  says,  "  that  the  notion  of  espousing,  which 
certain  interpreters  have  attributed  to  the  word  to  uyta- 
£elv  from  the  use  of  the  word  85"sjjD  in  the  Talmudic 
books,  is,  as  any  one  must  see,  manifestly  foreign  to  this 
place."  There  is  not  one  of  the  senses  of  SpTfc,  given 
by  Gcsenius,  and  not  one  of  the  many  senses  of  dyia^o), 
given  by  Schleusner  and  Wahl,  which  favors  the  render- 
ing of  Dr  Gill.  The  same  is  true  of  the  adjective  ayux. 
Schleusner  and  Wahl  give  a  great  variety  of  senses,  but 
none  of  them  relate  to  the  legitimacy  of  children.  Nor 
is  dxa&uQTOQ,  nor  the  corresponding  Hebrew  872p,  ever 
used  to  designate  a  spurious,  or  illegitimate  offspring. 
Good  use,  then,  is  entirely  against  the  rendering  of  Dr 
Gill. 

Second.  Although  the  advocates  of  Dr  Gill's  in- 
terpretation of  the  text  say  much  of  its  perfect  corres- 
pondence with  the  object  and  the  reasoning  of  the  Apos- 
tle ;  I  think  the  reasoning,  or  the  train  of  thought,  in 
8* 


86  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

one   important   respect,    though  not  mentioned   by  any 
writer  whom  I  have   consulted,    is  clearly   inconsistent 
with  that   interpretation.     The    Apostle  says,   "  Other- 
wise"  that  is,  were  it  not  as  I  have  said,   that  the  un- 
believing husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the   un- 
believing wife  by  the  husband  ;  "  your  children  would  be 
unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."     The  children  are  ho- 
ly, in  the  sense  intended,  in  consequence  of  the  influence 
which  the  believing  wife  has  upon  the   unbelieving  hus- 
band, or  the  believing  husband  upon  the  unbelieving  wife. 
He  is  sanctified  by  her,  and  she   by  him  ;  and   in  conse- 
quence of  this  sanctifi cation,  whatever  it  is,  the  children 
are  holy.     Without  this  sanctification  of  the  unbelieving 
party  by  the  believing,   the   children   would  be  unclean. 
Suppose    now    husband    and    wife  are   both  unbelievers. 
The  sanctification  spoken  of,  whatever  it  is,  does  not  ex- 
ist ;  of  course,  the  reason  or  cause  of  the  holiness  of  the 
children  does  not  exist.     And  if  the  cause  of  their  holi- 
ness does  not  exist,   they  cannot  be  holy  ;  they  are  un- 
clean.    But  are  they   illegitimate  ?     May   there  not  be 
lawful  marriage  between   a  husband  and  wife   who  are 
both  unbelievers  ?     Is  it  necessary  to  the   lawfulness  of 
marriage  and  to  the  legitimacy  of  children,  that  the  hus- 
band  or   the   wife  should  have    Christian   faith  ?     How 
was  it  with   those  who  were  married   and  had  children 
while  they  were  heathen  ?  Were  their  children  bastards  ? 
Were  they  ever  considered  and  treated  so   by  the   Apos- 
tles ?     They   certainly  would   have  been   considered  so, 
had  not  their  parents  been  lawfully  married.     But  if  law- 
ful marriage  may  exist,  where  neither  husband  nor  wife 
is  a  Christian  ;  they  may  surely  have  legitimate  children. 
But  they  cannot  have  children  who  are  holy,  in  the  sense 
of  the  Apostle ;  because  being  holy  in  that  sense  is  evi- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  87 

dently  the  consequence  of  an  unbelieving  father  being 
sanctified  by  a  believing  mother,  or  an  unbelieving  mo- 
ther by  a  believing  father. — Or  the  argument  may  be 
stated  thus.  If  both  parents  are  unbelievers, — if  they 
are  both  pagans  ;  most  surely  their  children  cannot  be 
considered  a  holy  seed,  in  the  sense  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  the  New.  They  are  uxu&aozu,  unclean,  pagan. 
But  are  they  illegitimate  1  If  not, — if  those  who  are 
joined  in  marriage,  though  both  of  them  are  unbelievers 
and  pagans,  may,  by  the  acknowledgement  of  all,  have 
legitimate  children  ;  then  clearly  the  faith  of  one  of  the 
parents,  and  the  sanctification  of  the  other  by  means  of 
that  faith,  cannot  be  necessary  in  order  to  the  legitimacy 
of  the  children.  But  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  their  be- 
ing holy  in  the  sense  of  the  Apostle  ;  for  he  says  express- 
ly, that  were  it  not  for  such  a  sanctification  of  one  parent 
by  the  other,  the  children  would  be  unclean,  which  is 
the  opposite  of  being  holy.  Thus  it  becomes  manifest 
that  uyia  and  dxudayxa  cannot  be  rendered  legitimate 
and  illegitimate,  without  involving  us  in  inextricable  diffi- 
culty as  to  the  Apostle's  reasoning.  But  this  difficulty 
is  avoided  by  another  interpretation,  as  we  shall  see  in 
the  sequel. 

There  is  no  occasion  to  dwell  upon  the  opinion  of 
those,  who  consider  the  Apostle  as  speaking  of  the  real 
conversion  of  an  unbelieving  by  a  believing  partner,  or 
of  the  prospect  of  such  conversion.  For  although  this 
opinion  may  seem  to  derive  some  support  from  v.  16,  it 
does  not,  on  the  whole,  appear  to  agree  with  the  statement 
of  the   case. 

The  other  sense  of  the  text,  which  I  shall  now  par- 
ticularly consider,  is  this  :  The  unbelieving  husband,  by 
his  voluntary  connexion  with  a  believing  wife,   is,  in   a 


88  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

manner,  separated  from  the  heathen,  and  brought  into  an 
alliance  with  Christians.  His  being  "pleased  to  dwell 
with"  such  a  wife  shows,  that  he  is  not  an  outrageous  in- 
fidel, but  that  he  has  some  sober  reflection,  and  is  will- 
ing to  be  in  Christian  society.  He  stands  in  that  relation 
to  his  wife  in  which,  as  Scripture  teaches,  he  becomes 
one  with  her.  On  account  of  this  near  relation,  he  is  to 
be  regarded  and  treated  very  differently  from  what  he 
would  be,  if  no  such  relation  existed.  He  has  been  and 
is  so  sanctified,  ijyiaaiai, — his  condition  relatively,  is  so 
affected  by  his  marriage  with  her,  that  her  living  with 
him  will  be  attended  with  no  guilt,  and  will  deprive  her 
of  no  privileges.  She  has  therefore  no  occasion  to  put 
him  away,  but  may  as  lawfully  and  properly  continue  to 
dwell  with  him,  as  if  he  were  a  Christian.  Were  it  not 
for  this  ;  that  is  ;  were  it  not  that  his  state  relatively  is 
thus  affected  by  his  connexion  with  her ;  in  other  words, 
were  he,  in  all  respects,  to  be  reckoned  among  the  un- 
sanctified  heathen  ;  were  he  openly  and  entirely  united 
to  their  society  ;  were  his  wife's  piety  and  her  relation 
to  him  a  matter  of  no  consideration,  and  were  he  to  be 
regarded  just  as  he  would  be,  if  he  had  no  connexion  at 
all  with  God's  people  ;  then  indeed  his  children  would 
be  unclean.  Their  relation  to  such  a  father,  if  his  state 
were  in  no  way  made  better  by  his  connexion  with  a  pi- 
ous wife,  would  render  them  heathen  children,  and  would 
exclude  them  from  the  peculiar  privileges  of  the  children 
of  God's  people.  But  now,  as  his  condition  is  so  altered 
by  his  matrimonial  connexion  with  a  believing  wife  ;  as 
he  is  by  that  connexion  so  sanctified,  that  he  and  his  wife 
stand  well  in  respect  to  their  domestic  state  ;  his  children 
are  not  to  be  regarded  as  heathen  children,  but  as  a  holy 
seed,  a  Christian  offspring,  entitled  to  the  particular  afc 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  89 

fection  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  to  the  privileges  of 
a  Christian  education.  In  other  words  ;  The  people  of 
God  are  not  to  treat  them  as  unclean, — are  not  to  sepa- 
rate them  from  their  society  ;  but  are  to  receive  them,  to 
adhere  to  them,  and  to  train  them  up  for  the  service  of 
Christ. 

But  there  is  another  argument  in  favor  of  this  inter- 
pretation ;  namely,  the  itsus  loquendi ;  the  sense  general- 
ly attached  in  other  parts  of  Scripture  to  the  principal 
words,  on  which  the  interpretation  must  depend ;  and 
especially  the  sense  which  these  words  have,  when  appli- 
ed to  the  same  subjects.  It  should  never  be  forgotten, 
that  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  wrote  the  book  containing  the 
text  under  consideration,  was  by  birth  and  education  a 
Hebrew ;  that  he  was  perfectly  familiar  with  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  that  in  a  very  remarkable  degree  he  trans- 
fused the  peculiarities  of  those  Scriptures  into  his  own 
writings.  He  adopted  the  phraseology  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  He  wrote  in  their  idiom.  Accordingly  it 
will  be  of  the  first  importance  to  notice  the  peculiar  He- 
brew sense  of  the  principal  words  found  in  the  passage 
before  us. 

'.AxuftccQTog,  according  to  Schleusner,  signifies,  that 
which  is  prohibited  by  the  Mosaic  law,  or  that  from  which 
the  people  of  God  were  required  to  separate  themselves. 
Referring  to  Acts  14:  28,  he  says  :  "  A  man  is  here 
called  axudccQTog,  unclean,  with  whom  the  Jews  thought 
it  unlawful  to  have  any  familiar  intercourse."  He  repre- 
sents it  as  often  used  to  denote  a  pagan,  an  alien  from 
the  worship  of  the  true  God,  or  one  who  does  not  belong  to 
the  people  of  God,  or  to  the  society  of  Christians.  The 
text  under  consideration  he  renders  thus  :  "  Alioquin  et 
liberi  vestri  remoti  essent  a  societate  Christianorum  ;" 


90  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Otherwise  your  children  also  would  be  removed  from  the 
society  of  Christians.  He  quotes  the  passage  in  2  Cor. 
C:  17,  as  exhibiting  the  same  sense  of  the  word  :  '^xa- 
&aQT0v  pr}  anitG&e  ;  touch  not  the  unclean  thing ;  i.  e. 
as  the  connexion  shows,  have  no  intercourse  with  pagans. 
Wahl  agrees  with  Schleusner :  "If  it  were  othertvise, 
it  icoulcl  follow  that  your  children  a.lso  were  not  to  be 
considered  as  belonging  to  the  Christian  community." 
Lightfoot  is  of  the  same  opinion.  He  says  ;  "  That  the 
words  dxa&ayict  and  ayiu  refer  not  to  legitimacy  or 
illegitimacy,  but  to  the  Gentile  or  Christian  state  ;  that 
the  children  of  Gentiles,  or  pagans,  were  by  the  Jews 
considered  as  axa&uyTa,  unclean,  and  the  children  of  the 
Jews,  ay/a,  holy,  and  that  in  the  passage  under  conside- 
ration, the  Apostle  refers  to  this  well  known  sense  of 
the  word  ;  that  his  treatment  of  the  subject  does  not 
turn  on  this  hinge,  whether  a  child,  born  of  parents,  one 
of  whom  was  a  Christian  and  the  other  a  heathen,  was  a 
legitimate  offspring,  but  whether  he  was  a  Christian  off- 
spring." Whitby  presents  the  argument  still  more  fully. 
"  The  Apostle  does  not  say,  else  were  your  children  bas- 
tards, but  now  are  they  legitmate  ;  but  else  were  they  un- 
clean, i.  e.  heathen  children,  not  to  be  owned  as  a  holy 
seed,  and  therefore  not  to  be  admitted  into  covenant 
with  God  as  belonging  to  his  people.  That  this  is  the 
true  import  of  the  words  axa&aQTu  and  ayicc,  will  be 
apparent  from  the  Scriptures,  in  which  the  heathen  are 
styled  the  unclean,  in  opposition  to  the  Jews  in  covenant 

with  God,  and  therefore   styled  an  holy  people. The 

Jews  looked  upon  all  heathens  and  their  offspring,  as  un- 
clean, by  reason  of  their  want  of  circumcision,  the  sign 
of  the  covenant.  Hence,  whereas  it  is  said  that  Joshua 
circumcised  the  people,  the  Septuagint  say,  niQiexttda* 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  91 

gtv,  he  cleansed  them. To  this  sense  of  the  words 

unclean  and  holy,  the  Apostle  may  here  most  rationally 
be  supposed  to  allude,  declaring  that  the  seed  of  holy 
persons,  as  Christians  are  called,  are  also  holy.  And 
though  one  of  the  parents  be  still  a  heathen,  yet  is  the 
denomination  to  be  taken  from  the  better,  and  so  their 
offspring  are  to  be  esteemed  not  as  heathens,  i.  e.  un- 
clean, but  holy,  as  all  Christians  by  denomination  are. 
So  Clemens  Alexandrinus  infers,  saying ;  '  I  suppose 
the  seed  of  those  that  are  holy,  is  holy,  according  to  that 
saying  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
husband  &,c.' — referring  to  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion."— Whitby  confutes  the  other  rendering,  '  Else  were 
your  children  bastards,'  by  saying ;  "  The  word  used 
for  bastard  by  the  Apostle  being  vo&og,  Heb.  12:  8,  and 
the  word  yvrjciog  being  the  proper  word  for  a  legitimate 
offspring  ;  had  the  Apostle  intended  such  a  sense,  he 
would  have  used  the  words,  which  in  the  Greek  writers 
are  generally  used  in  that  sense,  and  not  such  words  as 
in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  Jewish  writers  always  have 
a  relation  to  federal  holiness,  or  the  want  of  it." 

The  authors  to  whom  I  have  referred,  and  other  wri- 
ters of  the  highest  character  as  philologists  and  commen- 
tators, are  all  of  one  mind  as  to  the  sense  of  the  phrase, 
"  now  are  they  holy."  Noio  are  they  to  be  considered  as 
belonging  to  the  Christian  community.  God's  people  are 
not  to  separate  from  them  as  heathen  children,  but  to  treat 
them  as  christian  children.  Wahl  says,  "  it  is  spoken  of 
one  who  is  in  any  way  connected  with  Christians,  and 
therefore  to  be  reckoned  among  them."  So  also  Calvin. 
"  The  children  of  the  Jews,  because  they  were  made 
heirs  of  the  covenant,  and  distinguished  from  the  chil- 
dren of  the  impious,  were  called   a  holy  seed.     And  for 


92  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  same  reason,  the  children  of  Christians,  even  when 
only  one  of  the  parents  is  pious,  are  accounted  holy,  and 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Apostle,  differ  from 
the  impure  seed  of  idolaters."  He  evidently  means  to 
give  this  sense  to  the  text  we  are  considering.*  Doe- 
derlein  and  Knapp  allude  to  this  text  as  having  the  same 
sense.  Against  supposing  that  the  Apostle  meant  to  as- 
sert the  legitimacy  of  children,  Doddridge  urges,  that 
"  this  is  an  unscriptural  sense  of  the  word,  and  that  the 
argument  will  by  no  means  bear  it." 

The  interpretation  I  have  given  of  the  text  agrees 
very  nearly  with  what  is  expressed  in  the  following  quota- 
tion from  Flatt's  commentary.  He  says;  "  i]ylaorui  may 
be  rendered  thus  :  he  is  made  aytog  in  a  certain  respect. 
— Inasmuch  as  he  lives  in  society  with  a  Christian  wife, 
he  is,  in  a  measure,  separated  from  Jews  and  heathen, 
and  stands  in  connexion  with  the  Christian  community." 
In  consequence  of  which,  his  children,  who  would  other- 
wise be  considered  as  having  no  connexion  with  the  peo- 
ple of  God,  will  be  Christian  children.  (See  Flatt's 
Comm.  on  1  Cor.  7:  14.) 

It  may  perhaps  be  said  by  way  of  objection  to  this 
rendering,  that  j^ylixarai  must  have  the  same  general 
sense  with  ayia  ;  and  that  if  ayta,  holy,  implies  that  the 
children,  to  whom  it  was  applied,  were  consecrated  to 
God,  and  were  entitled  to  special  privileges  ;  then  r\ylaQ- 
tcti,  is  sanctified,  must  imply,  that  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band or  wife  was  in  like  manner  consecrated  to  God,  and 
was  entitled  to  the  same  special  privileges. 

But  to  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  it  is  nothing  un- 
common for  the  same  word  to  have  a  variety  of  signifi- 
cations, not  only  in  different  sentences,  but  in  the   same 

*  See  his  Institutes.  Book  IV.  Chap.  16. 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


9tf 


sentence.  Instances  of  this  might  easily  be  pointed  out 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  other  writings.  In  all  such  ca- 
ses, the  obvious  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  subject 
to  which  the  word  is  applied,  must  help  us  to  deter- 
mine in  what  particular  sense  it  is  used.  Any  one 
who  will  consult  Johnson's  English  or  Ainsworth's  La- 
tin Dictionary,  or  Schleusner's  Greek  Lexicon,  may  see 
how  different  subjects,  and  the  different  circumstances 
of  the  same  subject,  constantly  vary  the  signification  of 
the  same  word,  sometimes  in  small  and  almost  impercep- 
tible degrees,  and  sometimes  in  higher  degrees.  And  if 
the  sense  of  the  same  word  thus  varies  ;  surely  it  can  be 
nothing  strange  that  these  two  words,  one  a  verb,  and 
the  other  an  adjective,  should  vary  a  little  in  their  signi- 
fication, when  applied  to  subjects  so  different,  as  those 
now  referred  to.  So  that  our  giving  somewhat  of  a  dif- 
ferent sense  to  r^laGruv  from  what  we  give  to  ctyicc,  is  no 
valid  objection  to  our  interpretation  of  the  text. 

After  all,  it  will  be  seen  that,  according  to  the  inter- 
pretation I  have  given,  the  two  words,  though  the  one  is 
a  verb  and  the  other  an  adjective,  have  really  the  same 
general  sense,  i.  e.  the  sense  of  being  separated,  set  apart, 
or  made  Jit  for  a  particular  use  ;  and  that  the  difference, 
so  far  as  there  is  any,  arises  from  the  obvious  difference 
of  the  subjects.  The  general  notion  of  being  sanctijicd 
is  first  applied  to  an  unconverted  heathen,  connected  in 
marriage  with  a  Christian ;  and  it  is  applied  in  reference 
to  a  particular  question,  that  is,  whether  it  is  proper  and 
advisable,  that  a  Christian  should  continue  to  live  with  an 
unbelieving  partner.  Now  when  the  Apostle  says,  in  re- 
ference to  this  question,  "  the  unbelieving  husband  is 
sanctified  by  the  wife,"  it  is  natural  to  understand  him  to 
?;peak  of  a  sanctification  adapted  to  the  subject  under 
9 


04  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

consideration.  And  a  sanctification  adapted  to  that  sub- 
ject would  seem  to  be  this ;  that  by  his  connexion  in 
marriage  with  a  believing  wife,  he  is,  in  some  sort,  sepa- 
rated from  the  society  of  the  heathen,  certainly  from  the 
familiar  intercourse  with  them  which  he  once  had ;  that, 
on  account  of  the  pious  woman  with  whom  he  is  so  close- 
ly connected,  he  is  to  be  regarded  in  a  light  different 
from  that,  in  which  he  would  be  regarded,  if  he  were  al- 
together a  pagan,  and  had  no  such  relation  to  a  Christian 
partner ;  and  that,  by  the  effect  which  her  faith  produces 
upon  him,  he  is  brought  into  such  a  state,  that  she  may 
with  propriety  continue  to  live  with  him.  Their  inter- 
course comes  under  a  sanctifying  influence,  by  means  of 
her  piety.  This  interpretation,  it  is  evident,  gives  the 
same  general  sense  to  ^ylania^  as  to  ayia,  the  last  be- 
ing applied  to  children,  and  denoting  that  they,  by  their 
very  birth,  are  separated  from  paganism,  and  brought 
into  the  nursery  of  the  Christian  church,  where  they  are 
to  be  consecrated  to  God,  and  trained  up  for  his  service. 

It  will  cast  a  still  clearer  light  on  the  meaning  of  the 
text,  to  inquire  what  was  the  occasion  of  the  doubt  which 
arose  in  the  minds  of  the  Corinthian  converts,  and  ren- 
dered the  advice  of  the  Apostle  necessary.  This  doubt 
unquestionably  arose,  not  in  consequence  of  any  thing  in 
the  original  institution  of  marriage,  but  in  consequence  of 
the  special  law  which  God  gave  to  the  Israelites,  forbid- 
ding them  to  contract  marriages  with  any  of  the  idola- 
trous people  around  them  ;  a  law  which  was  intended, 
like  many  others,  to  preserve  them  a  holy  nation,  separate 
from  the  rest  of  the  world,  till  the  coming  of  Christ.  The 
doubt  might  be  occasioned  more  directly  by  the  instances, 
in  which  such  prohibited  marriages  had  been  dissolved 
by  divine  direction,  particularly  in  the  time  of  Ezra.     In 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  95 

opposition  to  the  command  of  God,  the  people  had  form- 
ed marriages  with  the  daughters  of  the  surrounding  na- 
tions ;  so  that,  as  it  was  said,  the  holy  seed,  i.  e.  the  Jews, 
had  mingled  themselves  with  those  idolatrous  people.  Af- 
ter a  time,  those  who  had  thus  offended,  were  brought  to 
consider  the  evil  of  what  they  had  done  ;  and  they  made 
a  covenant  with  God  to  put  away  all  the  wives,  and  such 
as  were  born  of  them,  according  to  the  divine  command. 
See  Ezra,  chap.  ix.  and  x.  Now  the  Apostle  virtually 
told  the  Corinthian  Christians,  that  that  ancient,  national 
law  was  not  binding  upon  them,  any  more  than  the  law 
of  circumcision  ;  that  those  believers  who  were  lawfully 
married  to  unbelievers  had  no  occasion  to  dissolve  the 
marriage  bond.  And  he  suggested  to  them  one  consider- 
ation of  great  weight ;  namely  ;  that  if  according  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  the  example  of  the  people  in  the  time  of 
Ezra,  they  were  to  put  away  their  unbelieving  partners, 
and  so  treat  them  as  pagans,  axadagra,  unclean ;  they 
must  consider  their  children  also  as  unclean,  i.  e.  heathen 
children,  and  put  them  away  likewise,  as  the  people  did 
in  the  case  referred  to.  Jn  opposition  to  this,  the  Apos- 
tle appeals  to  a  fact  which,  as  all  Pedobaptists  believe, 
was  well  known ;  namely  ;  that  the  offspring  of  such 
marriages  were  considered,  as  they  are  now,  to  be  a  holy 
seed,  ayia,  just  as  if  both  parents  were  believers,  and  so 
were  fit  to  be  devoted  to  God,  and  to  enjoy  special  privi- 
leges in  the  society  of  his  people. 

It  will  be  seen  that,  in  this  extended  examination  of 
the  passage  before  us,  my  chief  reliance  is  upon  well 
known  usage  as  to  the  word  aywg  ;  that  is,  the  prevailing 
sense  of  the  word  and  its  corresponding  Hebrew  ft^p 
among  the  Jews,  especially  when  applied  to  Israelites, 
whether  men  or  children,  by  way  of  distinction  from  oth- 
er nations 


90  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

I  have  only  one  more  remark.  All  Pedobaptists  be- 
lieve, that  the  children  of  Christians,  even  those  children 
who  had  only  one  believing  parent,  were,  in  the  Apostle's 
time,  and  in  the  Corinthian  church,  actually  devoted  to 
God  in  Baptism,  and  so  brought  into  a  peculiar  relation 
to  the  Christian  church.  Now  on  this  supposition,  what 
can  be  more  natural,  than  to  suppose  that  the  Apostle 
referred  to  this  fact,  when  he  said,  the  children  spoken  of 
were  ayia,  holy,  i.  e.  set  apart,  consecrated  to  God  1 

The  text,  thus  interpreted,  presents  a  very  satisfacto- 
ry view  of  the  subject  under  consideration,  and  shows 
how  the  Apostles  understood  their  commission.  For  we 
see,  that  wherever  the  Christian  religion  took  effect,  and 
men  became  believers,  and  formed  themselves  into  a  so- 
ciety, their  children  were  considered  as  appertaining  to 
the  same  society,  and  as  set  apart,  and  devoted  to  God ; 
just  as  they  were  under  the  former  economy.  And  as 
they  were  thus  considered  to  be  ayvu,  a  holy  seed,  sepa- 
rated from  paganism,  and  consecrated  to  God;  how  can 
we  reasonably  doubt  that  they  had  the  sign  of  consecra- 
tion put  upon  them  ?  Whitby  states  the  argument  from 
this  text  thus.  "  If  the  holy  seed  among  the  Jews  were 
to  be  circumcised,  and  be  made  federally  holy  by  receiv- 
ing the  sign  of  the  covenant  and  being  admitted  into  the 
number  of  God's  people,  because  they  were  born  in  sanc- 
tity, or  were  seminally  holy  ;  for  the  root  being  holy,  so 
are  the  branches  ;  then,  by  like  reason,  the  holy  seed  of 
Christians  ought  to  be  admitted  to  Baptism,  the  sign  of 
the  Christian  covenant,  and  so  to  be  entered  into  the  so- 
ciety of  the  Christian  church."  Whitby  refers  to  Tertul- 
lian,  de  Anima,  cap.  39,  as  having  the  substance  of  this 
argument. 

On  the   whole,   mv  conclusion   is,  that  although   the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  97 

word  ayia  does  not  properly  mean  baptized,  it  denotes 
that  the  children  referred  to  were  in  such  a  condition,  or 
were  regarded  as  standing  in  such  a  relation  to  God  and 
his  people,  that  the  appointed  sign  of  consecration  to  God 
was  of  course  to  be  applied  to  them.  Or  to  express  it  dif- 
ferently :  The  word  ayia  does  not  by  itself  mean,  and  is 
not  to  be  rendered,  subjects  of  baptism.  But  it  signifies 
that  the  children,  to  whom  it  was  applied,  were  to  be  re- 
garded as  Christian  children,  a  holy  seed,  separated  from 
the  heathen,  consecrated  to  God,  and  to  be  received  and 
treated  as  such  by  the  Christian  community.  The  word 
ayia,  by  itself,  can  signify  no  more  than  this.  But  if  the 
children  were  thus  regarded  as  a  holy,  consecrated  seed, 
it  is  natural  to  conclude  that  they  received  the  sign  of 
this.  And  the  supposition  of  their  being  devoted  to  God 
by  Baptism  most  satisfactorily  accounts  for  the  Apostle's 
calling  them  ayict,  holy,  or  consecrated  children* 

*  Pengilly  in  his  Scripture  Guide  gives  the  same  interpretation 
of  the  text,  1  Cor.  7:  14,  with  Dr  Gill.  But  I  learn  from  the  Let- 
ters of  David  and  John,  that  a  note,  affixed  to  Pengilly 'b  Guide  by 
the  Baptist  General  Tract  Society,  contains  a  different  interpreta- 
tion, which  one  of  the  writers  of  the  Letters  considers  to  be  the 
true  sense  of  the  text.  According  to  the  note  referred  to,  the  rea- 
soning and  decision  of  the  Apostle  stand  thus  :  "  The  unbelieving 
husband  is  not  unclean,  so  that  his  wife  may  not  lawfully  dwell 
with  him  ;  the  unbelieving  wife  is  not  unclean,  so  that  her  hus- 
band may  not  lawfully  dwell  with  her.  If  they  are  unclean,  then 
your  children  are  unclean,  and  not  one  parent  in  the  whole  church 
must  dwell  with  or  touch  his  children,  until  God  shall  convert 
them  ;  and  thus  Christianity  will  be  made  to  sever  the  ties  which 
bind  parents  to  their  children,  and  to  throw  out  the  offspring  of 
Christian  parents  into  the  ungodly  world  from  their  very  birth, 
without  any  provision  for  their  protection,  support,  or  religious  ed- 
ucation." 

This  interpretation,  on  which  I  shall  offer  a  few  remarks,  makes 
the  declaration  of  the  apostle,  "  else  were  your  children  tuulean" 
refer  to  the  whole  church,  an#to  all  the  children  of  the  church  ; 
whereas  it  is  perfectly  clear  from  the  passage,  that  the  apostle  re- 
fers to  only  one  particular  case,  namely,  that  of  a  believing  hus- 
band connected  with  an  unbelieving  wife,  and  a  believing  wite 

9* 


98  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

with  an  unbelieving  husband.  This  was  the  subject  before  the 
mind  of  the  Apostle.  And  the  judgement  which  he  expresses, 
his  reasoning,  his  conclusion, — all  that  he  says,  relates  to  this  case. 
Nor  is  there  any  reason  for  considering  it  as  addressed  to  the  church 
at  large,  except  that  you,  and  your,  the  pronoun  of  the  second  per- 
son, is  used  instead  of  the  third  person,  they,  which  is  applied  to 
the  particular  case  referred  to.  But  this  circumstance  can  prove 
nothing,  as  there  are  instances  which  cannot  be  numbered  in  every 
part  of  the  Bible,  of  a  similar  change  in  the  pronoun,  when  the 
same  persons  are  addressed. 

Besides  :  If  we  admit  the  above  mentioned  interpretation,  what 
sense  would  there  be  in  the  Apostle's  argument  ?  Speaking  of  a 
believing  wife  who  is  connected  with  an  unbelieving  husband,  he 
says,  such  a  husband  is  sanctified  by  his  wife,  so  that  she  is  under 
no  necessity  to  leave  him  ; — and  the  same  as  to  a  believing  hus- 
band and  unbelieving  wife  :  and  then  he  adds,  addressing  himself, 
unquestionably,  to  the  same  persons,  "  otherwise"  that  is,  were  it 
not  for  this  influence  which  the  believing  partner  has  upon  the  un- 
believing, "  your  children  would  be  unclean;  but  now,"  (incon- 
sequence of  this  favorable  influence,)  "  they  are  holy  ;" — are  to  be 
regarded  and  treated  as  a  holy,  consecrated  seed.  The  whole  re- 
lates to  the  particular  case  described.  What  sense  can  the  passage 
have,  if  we  understand  it  as  addressed  to  Christian  husbands  and 
wives  generally,  both  parties  being  believers  ?  "  Else  were  your 
children  unclean  !"  How?  Why?  The  Apostle  says,  it  would 
be  so,  were  it  not  that  the  unbelieving  partner  is  sanctified  by  the 
believing.  But  here,  according  to  the  supposition,  there  is  no  un- 
believing partner. — And  then,  what  sort  of  relation  has  the  conclu- 
sion to  the  premises  ?  The  reasoning  supposed  consists  of  two  parts. 
First;  if  the  unbelieving  partner  were  not  sanctified  by  the  believ- 
ing partner,  the  children  of  all  other  Christians  would  be.  unclean. 
Second  ;  but  now,  as  the  unbelieving  partner  is  sanctified  by  the 
believing,  the  children  of  all  other  christians  are  holy.  The  first 
could  not  be  true.  If  the  unbelieving  partner  were  not  sanctified 
by  the  believing,  it  would  indeed  follow,  that  their  children  would 
be  unclean  ;  but  it  would  not  follow  that  other  children  would  be 
unclean,  where  both  parents  were  believers.  The  conclusion  in, 
the  second  part  is  true;  but  it  does  not  follow  at  all  from  the 
premises.  The  children  of  the  church  generally,  where  both 
parents  are  believers,  are  indeed  holy,  in  the  sense  of  the  Apostle ; 
but  not  because  a  believing  partner  sanctifies  an  unbelieving. 

If  we  would  give  a  just  interpretation  to  this  passage,  we  must 
remember  the  following  things  ; 

1.  That  it  related  to  a  particular  case,  and  to  that  only.  2. 
That  the  uncleanness  spoken  of  in  the  children,  was  an  uncleanness 
which  would  be  the  consequence  of  their  having  an  unbelieving 
parent,  supposing  that  the  faith  of  tfle  other  parent  had  no  influ- 
ence to  prevent  it.  3.  That  the  holiness  which  the  Apostle  attri- 
buted to  children,  was  a  holiness  which  they  had  in  consequence 
of  being  the  children  of  a  believing  parent.  Had  both  parents  been 
heathen,  the  children  would  certainly  have  been  unclean,  in  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  9& 

sense  intended.  And  even  one  of  the  parents  being  a  heathen,  or 
an  unbeliever,  would  have  rendered  the  children  unclean,  had  it 
not  been  for  the  influence  of  the  other  parent's  faith.  They  were 
to  be  regarded  as  holy,  purely  because  one  of  their  parents  was  a 
believer,  and  because  the  faith  of  that  parent  prevented  the  un- 
cleanness  which  would  otherwise  have  belonged  to  them  in  conse- 
quence of  their  having  an  unbelieving  parent.  It  was  the  faith  of 
the  believing  parent  which  put  the  children  upon  a  level  with 
the  otber  children  of  tbe  church.  Those  were  holy  in  consequence 
of  the  faith  of  both  their  parents.  These  were  holy  in  consequence 
of  the  faith  of  one  of  their  parents. 

Now  I  think  no  interpretation  of  the  passage,  which  does  not 
accord  with  these  principles,  can  be  admitted  as  correct. 


LECTURE   VI. 


The  argument  .recapitulated.  Three  additional  considerations; — precepts  re- 
quiring the  education  of  children; — silence  of  the  New  Testament  respecting 
Infant  Baptism; — and  the  feelings  of  parents. — Proof  from  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory that  Infant  Baptism  was  practised  by  the  early  Christians. 

In  order  to  give  simplicity  and  unity  to  my  reason- 
ing on  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism,  I  have  made  it  rest 
on  the  single  inquiry,  how  the  Apostles  must  have  un- 
derstood the  commission  they  received  from  Christ,  to 
proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations.  I  have  considered  the 
point  at  issue  as  relating  altogether  to  the  just  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture.  And  as  the  passage  which  records 
the  commission,  does  not  explicitly  inform  us  whether 
infant  children  were  meant  to  be  included  or  not ;  I  have 
thought  it  indispensable  to  consider  what  there  was  in 
the  circumstances  of  the  Apostles,  as  native  Jews,  espe- 
cially in  their  usages  respecting  children,  which  would 
be  likely  to  influence  them  in  their  understanding  of  such 
a  commission  from  one,  who  was  born  and  educated  in 
the  same  community  with  them.  I  have  thought  it  im- 
portant also  to  inquire,  whether  there  was  any  thing  in 
the  previous  instructions  of  Christ,  or  in  the  writings  of 
the  Apostles  afterwards,  which  could  help  to  show  in 
what  light  they  regarded  little  children.  And  here  we 
have  found,  that  Christ,  exactly  in  accordance  with  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  101 

principle  which  was  established  by  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  represented  little  children,  as  entitled 
in  a  peculiar  sense,  to  the  privileges  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation, and  that  the  Apostle  Paul  represented  it  as  a  fact, 
generally  known  and  acknowledged,  that  the  children  of 
believers  were  a  holy  seed,  consecrated  to  God,  and  ad- 
mitted to  special  privileges  in  the  Christian  community. 
And  if  this  was  the  case,  we  have  supposed  it  would  fol- 
low of  course,  that  Baptism,  the  sign  of  such  consecra- 
tion to  God,  and  of  such  a  relation  to  the  Christian  com- 
munity, was  administered  to  them.  Every  consideration 
of  this  kind  will  be  strengthened,  and  every  such  probable 
conclusion  confirmed,  by  the  historical  proof  which  will 
by  and  by  be  produced,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  actually 
practised  in  the  early  Christian  churches.  This  proof 
might  indeed  have  been  exhibited  before  any  other  consid- 
eration ;  and  this  method  might  have  been  attended  with 
some  important  advantages.  But  it  must  be  remembered, 
that,  according  to  the  belief  of  all  Pedobaptists,  there 
were,  in  fact,  considerations,  which  influenced  the  Apos- 
tles and  early  Christians  to  practise  Infant  Baptism. 
Now  what  can  be  more  natural  than  for  us  first  of  all  to 
inquire,  and,  as  far  as  we  are  able,  to  ascertain,  what 
those  considerations  were ;  and  afterwards  to  present 
the  evidence  of  the  fact,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  prac- 
tised in  the  early  Christian  church  ?  In  this  way  we  be- 
come satisfied,  that  the  considerations,  which  operated 
upon  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  actually  produced  the 
effect  which  we  have  supposed.  According  to  our  views, 
they  were  the  men  who  began  Infant  Baptism  ;  of  course 
they  could  not  have  been  influenced  in  their  judgement  as 
we  are,  by  the  consideration,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  a 
practice  already  existing.     They  must  have  been  influen- 


102  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ced  altogether  in  another  way.  The  method  which  I 
have  chosen  is,  first,  to  inquire  into  the  circumstances 
and  usages  of  the  Apostles,  as  members  of  the  Jewish 
community,  and  to  satisfy  ourselves,  as  far  as  may  be, 
what  were  the  considerations,  which  would  naturally 
lead  them  to  understand  their  commission  to  proselyte 
and  baptize,  as  including  children ;  next,  to  attend  to 
any  thing  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  which  has 
an  obvious  correspondence  with  the  supposition,  that  In- 
fant Baptism  was  practised  by  the  Apostles ;  and  finally 
to  exhibit  the  proof,  that  Baptism  was  in  fact  applied  to 
children  in  the  early  Christian  churches.  This  order  ap- 
pears best  suited  to  present  the  whole  subject  in  a  clear 
light,  and  to  make  a  just  impression  on  the  minds  of 
Christians. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  argument  from  Ecclesiastical 
History,  I  shall  advert  to  three  additional  considerations. 

First.  The  manner  in  ivhich  the  Apostle  requires 
children  to  be  educated.  In  Ephesians  6:  4,  Christian 
parents  are  required  to  bring  up  their  children  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  This  is  the  gener- 
al precept.  Others  more  particular,  but  of  the  same 
import,  might  be  cited.  According  to  Apostolic  direc- 
tion, the  children  of  believers  were,  from  their  earliest 
years,  to  be  instructed  in  the  principles  of  the  Christian 
religion.  They  were  to  have  the  doctrines  and  pre- 
cepts, the  invitations  and  promises,  the  warnings  and 
threats  of  God's  word  clearly  set  before  them,  and  ear- 
nestly inculcated  upon  them.  They  were  to  be  consider- 
ed and  treated,  as  scholars,  placed  in  the  school  of  Christ, 
and  there  to  be  brought  under  the  influence  of  faithful 
instruction ;  so  that,  through  the  divine  blessing,  their 
minds  might  be  enlightened,  and  their  affections  and  ac- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  103 

fions  conformed  to  the  principles  of  Christianity.  In  a 
word,  their  education  was  to  be  conducted  with  a  single 
view  to  their  being  made  followers  of  Christ,  and  active 
members  of  his  spiritual  kingdom.  Now  the  precepts  of 
the  New  Testament,  requiring  all  this  instruction  and 
discipline  of  children,  perfectly  agree  with  the  view  we 
have  taken  of  their  state.  If  God  is  pleased  to  place 
our  children  in  such  a  near  relation  to  us,  and  if  he  re- 
quires us  to  consecrate  them  to  him,  and  to  put  upon 
them  the  sign  of  consecration,  the  mark  of  discipleship, 
that  is,  the  mark  of  their  being  placed,  as  young  disciples, 
in  the  school  of  Christ ;  it  becomes  perfectly  suitable, 
that  he  should  require  us  to  treat  them  with  all  this  af- 
fection and  care,  and  so  to  endeavour  to  bring  them  up 
for  God.  And  it  is  true  not  only  that  these  precepts  of 
the  New  Testament,  pointing  out  the  duty  of  parents, 
are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  doctrine  we  maintain, 
but  that  they  derive  additional  importance  from  this  doc- 
trine. If,  according  to  divine  appointment,  we  public- 
ly dedicate  our  children  to  God  by  a  solemn  religious 
rite,  and  thus  bring  them  into  a  special  relation  to  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  secure  to  them  a  prospect  of  spe- 
cial blessings ;  we  must  surely  feel,  that  we  are  under 
very  strong  obligations  to  cherish  a  tender  affection  for 
them,  and  to  labor,  by  all  the  methods  of  a  wise  Chris- 
tian discipline,  to  make  them,  what  the  privileges  of  their 
birth  and  the  commands  of  God  require  them  to  be. 
So  the  divine  precept  given  by  Moses,  that  parents 
should  teach  their  children  diligently  the  things  of  re- 
ligion, laboring  to  inculcate  them  morning  and  evening, 
and  all  hours  of  the  day,  became  specially  suitable,  and 
acquired  a  special  force,  on  account  of  their  children 
having  been  publicly  devoted  to  God,  and  marked  as  his, 
by  circumcision. 


104  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

These  observations  are  not,  meant  to  imply,  that  those 
who  do  not  devote  their  children  to  God  by  Baptism, 
may  not  feel  their  obligation  to  bring  them  up  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ;  but  that  those,  who 
practise  Infant  Baptism,  will  find  themselves  drawn  to 
this  duty  by  a  special  obligation,  and  will  be  likely  to 
perceive,  with  additional  clearness,  and  to  feel  with  ad- 
ditional force,  the  propriety  and  importance  of  giving 
them  a  religious  education.  Now  the  circumstance, 
that  Infant  Baptism,  considered  as  a  divine  institution, 
has  such  an  obvious  and  striking  correspondence  with 
those  precepts  which  point  out  the  duty  of  parents,  and 
invests  those  precepts  with  new  force,  is  a  circumstance 
in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  Whereas,  if  the  contrary 
were  fact ;  that  is  ;  if  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism 
were  calculated  to  diminish  in  our  view  the  importance 
of  a  religious  education,  or  to  render  us  less  attentive  to 
the  duty ;  if,  while  holding  to  Infant  Baptism,  we  felt  a 
less  powerful  motive,  than  we  otherwise  should,  to  bring 
up  our  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord  ;  this  certainly  would  be  a  consideration  of  no 
small  weight  against  it.  Because  it  is  the  manifest  de- 
sign of  all  the  positive  institutions  of  religion,  to  have  an 
effect  upon  our  minds  in  favor  of  its  moral  precepts,  and 
to  excite  us,  by  stronger  motives,  to  the  performance  of 
our  duty. 

The  second  consideration  referred  to,  is,  the  silence  of 
the  Neiv  Testament  respecting  the  subject  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism. This  circumstance  has  already  been  noticed  in 
another  connexion.  But  I  wish  to  dwell  upon  it  more 
particularly  here,  as  I  think  it  must  appear  on  the  whole 
to  be  a  circumstance  in  favor  of  our  doctrine. 

I  can  by  no  means  admit,  as  I  intimated  in  a  previous 


INFANT  BAPTISM,  105 

Lecture,  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  contain  any 
thing  which  fairly  implies  Infant  Baptism.  Still  it  is  evi- 
dent that  Infant  Baptism  is  not  introduced  as  a  subject 
of  particular  discussion  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  it 
is  neither  explicitly  enjoined  nor  prohibited  ;  and  that 
neither  the  practice  of  baptizing  children,  nor  the  absence 
of  such  a  practice  is  expressly  mentioned. 

But  the  fact,  that  Infant  Baptism  is  not  expressly  en- 
joined as  a  duty,  that  the  principle  involved  in  it  is  not 
particularly  discussed,  and  that  the  practice  is  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned,  is  no  argument  against  Infant  Bap- 
tism. 

This  general  fact  cannot  be  urged  as  an  argument 
against  Infant  Baptism,  because,  as  circumstances  were, 
there  was  no  occasion  to  enjoin  it,  and  no  occasion  to  dis- 
cuss the  subject,  or  even  to  mention  it.  These  circum- 
stances have  already  been  brought  into  view.  The  Jews 
had  always  been  accustomed  to  have  their  children  con- 
secrated to  God  by  the  same  rite,  as  was  appointed  orig- 
inally for  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  afterwards,  for  all 
men  from  among  the  Gentiles,  who  should  become  prose- 
lytes to  the  true  religion.  They  had  always  been  accus- 
tomed to  see  children  treated  as  a  holy  seed,  and  mem- 
bers of  the  society  of  God's  people.  They  had  never 
heard  the  propriety  of  this  questioned,  and  had  never  been 
acquainted  with  a  contrary  practice.  In  these  circum- 
stances, it  was,  I  apprehend,  a  matter  of  course,  that  they 
should  understand  the  divine  appointment  of  Baptism  for 
Christian  Proselytes,  as  including  their  children.  And 
it  being  a  matter  of  course  that  they  should  so  under- 
stand the  subject,  there  was  not  the  least  necessity  that 
the  Baptism  of  children  should  be  expressly  required,  or 
even  mentioned. 

10 


106  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

To  be  perfectly  satisfied  on  this  subject,  just  look  at 
the  manner  in  which  circumcision  is  spoken  of,  Acts  15: 
1.  Certain  Judaizing  Christians  came  from  Judea  to 
Antioch,  and  said  to  the  brethren  there,  "  Except  ye  be 
circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  sav- 
ed." Why  did  they  not  express  all  that  they  meant,  and 
say,  "  Except  ye  and  your  children  be  circumcised,  ye 
cannot  be  saved  1"  And  afterwards,  v.  10,  when  Peter 
spoke  in  opposition  to  the  Judaizing  Christians  in  regard 
to  the  same  subject,  and  said,  "  Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put 
a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples," — that  is,  Why  do 
ye  require  the  disciples  to  be  circumcised  ? — Why  did  he 
not  in  so  many  words  object  to  laying  this  burdensome 
rite  upon  the  disciples  and  their  children  1  The  answer 
to  both  questions  is  the  same.  There  was  no  occasion 
for  the  mention  of  children,  because  it  was  perfectly  un- 
derstood by  all,  that  children  zvere  to  be  included  with  their 
parents.  It  had  always  been  so.  And  who  could  need 
to  be  informed,  that  it  was  to  be  so  still  1  The  same  I 
think  must  have  been  the  case,  when  Baptism  was  ap- 
pointed, instead  of  circumcision,  as  the  mark  to  be  put 
upon  the  people  of  God.  The  Apostles  and  Jewish 
Christians  had  always  been  accustomed  to  consider  chil- 
dren, as  united  with  their  parents,  as  belonging  to  the 
same  religious  community,  and  as  entitled  to  the  same 
mark  of  consecration  to  God.  They  would  understand, 
that  this  practice  of  applying  the  sign  of  consecration  to 
children,  as  well  as  parents,  would  be  continued  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  because  the  reasons  for  it  con- 
tinued, and  because  nothing  was  said  or  done  by  the  Au- 
thor of  the  new  dispensation  to  show  that  there  was  to  be 
any  alteration  in  this  respect.  So  that  it  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  any  thing  strange,  that  children  are  not  ex- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  107 

pressly  mentioned  in  the  command  to  baptize,  or  in  the 
accounts  of  Baptisms  contained  in  the  New  Testament. 
Nor  is  it  strange  that  no  express  declaration  on  this  sub- 
ject is  found  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian  Fa- 
thers ;  as  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  practice  had  ever 
been  objected  to,  or  had  ever  occasioned  any  controversy. 
This  silence  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  early  Fathers 
respecting  the  Baptism  of  children,  is  analogous  to  the 
fact,  that  the  circumcision  of  children  on  the  eighth  day 
is  scarcely  mentioned  for  a  thousand  years  before  Christ. 
Now  as  we  can  satisfactorily  account  for  the  fact,  that  the 
New  Testament  contains  no  express  mention  of  Infant 
Baptism,  on  the  supposition  that  Infant  Baptism  was  ad- 
mitted and  practised  by  all  Christians  without  any  con- 
troversy ;  this  fact  cannot  surely  be  considered  as  afford- 
ing an  argument  against  Infant  Baptism. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  silence  which  we  find  in  the 
New  Testament  in  the  other  respects  mentioned;  that  is  ; 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  command  prohibiting  the  prac- 
tice of  Infant  Baptism,  and  that  there  are  no  such  re- 
marks as  would  naturally  arise  from  the  absence  of  the 
practice,  is  an  important  argument  in  favor  of  Infant 
Baptism.  As  it  had  always  been  the  custom  of  God's 
people  from  the  time  of  Abraham,  to  consecrate  their  chil- 
dren to  God,  to  put  upon  them  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
and  to  admit  them  as  belonging  to  their  holy  communi- 
ty ;  if  Christ  had  intended  to  make  any  alteration  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  regarded  and  treat- 
ed ;  we  should  suppose  that  he  would  have  mentioned 
such  alteration ;  and  that  when  he  commanded  his  Apos- 
tles to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations,  he  would  have 
expressly  informed  them,  that  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion children  were  not  meant  to  be  included. 


108  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

But  there  is  another  view  of  greater  consequence 
still.  All  the  Jews,  those  who  embraced  Christianity, 
and  those  who  rejected  it,  had  always  been  accustomed 
to  consider  their  children  as  a  holy  seed,  consecrated  to 
God,  and  to  see  them  receive  the  seal  of  God's  covenant. 
Now  if  Christianity  had  cut  them  off  from  this  relation 
to  God,  and  had  deprived  them  of  the  sign  of  being  con- 
secrated to  him,  and  had  treated  them  as  having  no  part 
or  lot  with  God's  people ;  can  we  think  that  such  a 
change  as  this  could  have  been  made  without  occasion- 
ing some  animadversion  1  Can  it  be  that  neither  the 
friends  nor  the  enemies  of  Christ  would  have  made  any 
complaint  1  The  unbelieving  Jews,  and  eyen  some  who 
professed  to  believe,  were  ready  enough,  on  all  occasions, 
to  complain  of  innovation,  and  of  every  thing  in  Christi- 
anity, which  implied  the  giving  up  of  what  belonged  to 
the  Jewish  religion.  How  earnestly,  for  instance,  did 
they  object  to  giving  up  circumcision,  although  Baptism 
was  introduced  in  its  place,  as  a  mark  of  discipleship  ? 
But  in  consequence  of  the  ardent  affection  which,  as  men, 
especially  as  Israelites,  they  cherished  for  their  offspring, 
they  must  have  felt  a  much  stronger  objection  to  depriv- 
ing them  wholly  of  the  privilege  of  being  consecrated  to 
God  by  any  religious  rite,  and  to  excluding  them  wholly 
from  that  sacred  relation  which  they  had  always  sustain- 
ed to  the  church  of  God,  than  to  a  change  merely  hi 
the  outward  rite.  But,  with  all  their  disposition  to  com- 
plain, what  complaints  did  they  ever  make  of  Christ,  or 
the  Apostles,  for  treating  children  with  less  regard,  than 
had  been  exercised  towards  them  before  1  There  is  not 
the  least  appearance  of  there  having  ever  been  any  com- 
plaint or  any  controversy  on  this  subject  in  the  time  of 
Christ,   or   his   Apostles,  or  in  the  period  succeeding. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  1(M> 

Now  I  cannot  but  regard  this  as  utterly  unaccountable. 
on  the  supposition  that  Baptism,  the  initiatory  sign  ap- 
pointed by  Christ  for  his  disciples,  had  been  withheld 
from  their  children.  Of  all  the  subjects  of  complaint,  this 
must  have  been  first  among  those  Jews  who  rejected 
Christianity,  and  even  among  those  who  errrbraced  it. 
And  as  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such  complaint,  and  no 
command  or  intimation  respecting  children,  which  could 
have  occasioned  such  a  complaint ;  in  a  word,  as  there  is 
perfect  silence  among  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  of  the  early  Fathers,  respecting  any  change  in  the 
standing  or  privileges  of  children  ;  we  must  conclude 
that  no  change  took  place,  and  that  they  were  regarded 
and  treated  by  the  teachers  of  Christianity,  as  they  had 
been  by  the  people  of  God  before. 

We  come  now  to  the  third  consideration  referred  to ; 
namely;  the  feelings  of  pious  parents. 

My  position  is,  that  Infant  Baptism,  when  apprehend- 
ed correctly,  must  be  agreeable  to  the  best  feelings  of  pi- 
ous parents  respecting  their  infant  offspring.  This  is 
not  produced  as  an  independent  argument.  But  after 
having  attended  to  the  principal  reasons  which  support 
the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  it  surely  must  be  a  grati- 
fication to  find,  that  the  doctrine  corresponds  with  our 
purest  and  best  affections.  It  would,  on  the  contrary, 
be  a  serious  difficulty  in  our  way,  and  would  lead  us,  al- 
ter all,  to  question  the  soundness  of  our  arguments,  if 
the  most  tender  and  pious  dispositions  of  our  hearts  were 
found  in  array  against  the  practice  for  which  we  plead. 
The  laws  and  institutions  of  religion  are  all  intended  to 
exercise  and  improve  our  benevolent  and  pious  affections. 
And  when  we  perceive  in  them  an  obvious  fitness  to  do 
tins,  we  cannot  but  consider  it  an  argument  in  their 
10* 


110  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

favor.  How  common  is  it,  for  example,  to  illustrate  and 
enforce  the  obligation  of  men  to  pray,  and  to  attend  on 
the  Lord's  Supper,  from  the  consideration,  that  these 
duties  perfectly  agree  with  our  most  devout  feelings,  and 
are  suited  to  improve  them  ?  Indeed  how  often  do  we 
satisfy  ourselves  that  it  is  our  duty  to  perform  certain 
things,  not  expressly  enjoined  by  the  word  of  God,  be- 
cause we  are  drawn  to  them  by  those  affections  which 
we  consider  to  be  right  ?  But  if  we  find  that  any  prac- 
tice stands  in  opposition  not  only  to  our  natural  affections, 
but  to  the  feelings  of  benevolence  ;  we  are  wholly  disin- 
clined to  believe  that  it  could  ever  have  been  appointed 
by  God.  With  these  things  in  view,  we  come  to  the  sub- 
ject now  before  us.  And  let  me  ask,  what  pious  parent, 
rightly  apprehending  the  nature  and  design  of  Infant 
Baptism,  would  not  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  benevolent 
appointment  of  God  1  Who  would  not  be  gratified  to 
find  such  a  doctrine,  as  that  of  Infant  Baptism,  true  ? 
Who  would  not  deem  it  a  privilege  to  be  permitted  to 
perform  such  a  duty  ?  And  who  would  not  regard  it  as 
a  subject  of  heartfelt  grief,  to  be  deprived  of  such  a  privi- 
lege f  It  must  surely  be  the  wish  of  pious  parents  to 
give  up  their  children  to  God  ;  and  to  do  this  in  the  tem- 
ple of  God,  where  the  prayers  of  many  will  ascend  with 
their  own  to  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  in  behalf  of 
their  children.  Publicly  to  apply  to  them  a  sacred  rite 
which  marks  them  »or  God ;  which  signifies  that  they 
are  placed  in  the  school  of  Christ,  and  in  the  nursery  of 
the  church  ;  that  they  are  to  enjoy  faithful  parental  in- 
struction, the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  affections 
and  prayers  of  Christians  ;  which  signifies  too,  that  they 
are  to  come  under  the  influence  of  a  divine  economy, 
fraught  with  the  most  gracious  promises,  and  the  most 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  HI 

precious  blessings ; — to  apply  to  children  a  sacred  rite  of 
such  import,  must  be  inexpressibly  delightful  to  godly 
parents.  If  then  such  parents  give  up  Infant  Baptism, 
they  give  up  a  privilege,  which  I  should  think  they 
would  regard  as  of  more  value  to  their  children,  than  all 
the  riches  of  the  world.  Now  I  cannot  but  deplore 
a  mistake,  which  leads  parents  to  act  against  those  sin- 
cere and  devout  affections,  which  God  requires  them  to 
cherish,  and  which  religion,  with  all  its  observances,  is 
designed  to  improve.  Pious  parents,  I  repeat  it,  who 
rightly  apprehend  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  cannot 
but  wish  it  true.  And  it  would  seem  to  me  that  their 
first  inquiry  must  be,  whether  they  may  be  permitted 
thus  to  devote  their  dear  offspring  to  God,  and  to  apply 
to  them  the  seal  of  his  gracious  covenant.  If  nothing  is 
found  to  forbid  their  doing  this  ;  especially,  if  they  have 
reason,  from  the  word  and  providence  of  God,  to  believe 
that  he  would  approve  it ;  I  should  suppose  they  would 
embrace  such  a  privilege  with  the  sincerest  gratitude 
and  joy,  and  hasten  to  confer  such  a  blessing,  upon  their 
children. — That  it  is  a  privilege  and  a  blessing  will  be 
made  still  more  evident,  by  the  remarks  I  shall  offer  in 
another  place  on  the  utility  of  Infant  Baptism. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism from  Ecclesiastical  History. 

The  testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History  on  this  sub- 
ject is  just  such  as  we  should  expect,  on  the  supposition 
that  Infant  Baptism  was,  from  the  beginning,  universally 
regarded  as  a  Christian  institution.  In  this  respect,  the 
same  remarks,  as  have  been  made  on  the  manner  in 
which  the  subject  is  treated  in  the  New  Testament,  will 
apply  generally  to  the  earliest  Christian  Fathers.  They 
had  little  or  no  occasion  to  enter  on  a  particular  discus- 


112  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

sion  of  the  subject,  or  everi  to  make  any  express  mention 
of  it.  Accordingly  we  find  in  the  writers,  who  next  suc- 
ceeded the  Apostles,  only  allusions  to  Infant  Baptism. 
These  allusions,  however,  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  they 
cannot  well  be  accounted  for  without  supposing  that  In- 
fant Baptism  was  the  uniform  practice.  But  the  Fathers, 
who  wrote  in  the  following  ages,  were  more  and  more 
particular  and  explicit  in  their  testimony. 

My  intention  is  only  to  make  citations  sufficient  to 
show  the  nature  of  the  argument ;  referring  you  to  Wall's 
History  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  other  works,  where  the 
subject  is  treated  at  full  length. 

A  citation  has  commonly  been  made  from  the  apology 
of  Justin  Martyr,  written  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Among  those  who  were  members  of  the  church, 
he  says,  there  were  many  of  both  sexes,  some  sixty,  and 
some  seventy  years  old,  who  were  made  disciples  to  Christ, 
ix  71  aid  tor,  from  their  infancy,  or  childhood.  The 
word  he  uses  is  ifAccd-rjiivftrjoav,  they  were  proselyted, 
or  made  disciples.  Though  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  pro- 
priety of  applying  this  word  to  infant  children,  who  are 
publicly  consecrated  to  God,  and  whom  their  parents  and 
the  church  engage  to  instruct  and  train  up  for  Christ ; 
yet  as  the  phrase,  in  naidoiv,  may  relate  to  children  who 
have  come  to  years  of  understanding,  as  well  as  to  in- 
fants, I  am  satisfied,  on  a  review  of  the  testimony  of 
Justin,  that  it  cannot  well  be  urged  as  conclusive  in  fa- 
vor of  pedobaptism.  Still  I  think  it  altogether  probable, 
and  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  that  Justin  meant  in 
this  place  to  sp^ak  of  those  who  were  made  disciples, 
or  introduced  into  the  school  of  Christ  by  baptism,  when 
they  were  infants. 

Irenaeus3  a  disciple  of  Poiycarp,   who  was  a  disciple 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  113 

of  John,  was  born  near  the  close  of  the  first  century. 
He  says  ;  "  Christ  came  to  save  all  persons,  who  by  him 
are  born  again  unto  God,  (renascuntur  in  Deum,)  infants, 
and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youths,  and  elder  per- 
sons." Wall  and  Schroeckh,  and  other  writers  of  the 
first  ability,  with  good  reason  no  doubt,  consider  the  word, 
renasci,  in  the  writings  of  Irenaeus  and  Justin,  as  signi- 
fying Baptism.  "  Any  man,"  says  Wall,  "  who  has  been 
at  all  conversant  in  the  Fathers, — will  be  satisfied  that 
they  as  constantly  meant  baptized,  by  the  word  regenerat- 
ed, or  born  again,  as  we  mean  the  same  by  the  word 
christened."  In  this  argument  we  are  not  concerned  at 
all  with  the  opinions  entertained  by  Irenaeus  as  to  the  ef- 
ficacy of  Baptism.  Our  only  inquiry  is,  whether  it  ap- 
pears from  his  writings,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  the  pre- 
vailing practice.  The  passage  above  cited  is  supposed 
to  contain  proof  of  this.  But  though  it  is  quite  evident 
that  the  word  renasci  was  used  by  Irenaeus,  as  well  as 
by  the  Christian  Fathers  generally,  to  denote  baptism ; 
I  shall  not  count  this  passage  among  those  which  are 
to  be  regarded  as  of  chief  importance,  and  as  most  deci- 
sive in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 

The  testimony  of  Tertullian  must  be  considered  with 
special  care.  He  wrote  about  a  hundred  years  after 
the  Apostles.  The  strange  opinions  which  he  enter- 
tained, as  a  Montanist,  have  nothing  to  do  with  his 
testimony  as  to  facts  ;  especially  as  to  facts,  to  which 
he  makes  no  appeal  in  support  of  his  peculiar  opin- 
ions ;  and  most  of  all  as  to  those  facts,  against  which 
he  objects,  and  which  he  attacks  with  severity.  In 
regard  to  such  facts,  his  testimony  is  entitled  to  full 
credit.  For  what  motive  could  he  possibly  have  to  as- 
sert things,  which  stood  in  the  way  of  his  own  sectarian 


114  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

views,  unless  those  things  actually  existed  1  Would  any 
author,  especially  one  who  wished  to  set  himself  up  as  the 
head  of  a  sect,  speak  of  the  existence  of  a  practice  which 
he  disapproved,  and  which  was  directly  opposed  to  his 
favorite  object,  when  at  the  same  time  he  was  aware  that 
no  such  practice  existed  ?  It  is  futile  to  say,  that  Ter- 
tullian  was  an  enthusiast.  Was  he  an  enthusiast  in  re- 
gard to  Baptism  ?  And  were  the  facts  to  which  he  al- 
ludes, of  such  a  nature,  that  speaking  of  them  as  he  did 
could  in  any  way  tend  to  justify  him  in  his  enthusiastic 
notions  1  Could  he  have  had  any  motive  whatever  to 
treat  Infant  Baptism  as  he  did,  unless  he,  and  those  for 
whom  he  wrote,  knew  that  it  was  a  common  practice  ? 
This  has  never  been  shown ;  and  I  am  greatly  mistaken 
if  it  ever  can  be. 

The  passage  in  Tertullian's  treatise  De  Baptismo, 
chap.  18,  is  very  important,  though  it  is  attended  with 
difficulties,  and  has  been  a  subject  of  no  small  controver- 
sy. The  following  is  a  translation.  The  original  will  be 
seen  in  the  note.* 

*  Caeterum  baptismum  non  temere  credendum  esse  sciant  quo- 
rum officium  est.  Omni  petenti  te  dato,  suum  habet  titulum.  pro- 
inde  ad  eleemosynam  pertinentem.  Imo  illud  potius  perspicicn- 
dum ;  Nolite  dare  sanctum  canibus,  et  porcis  projicere  margarita 
vestra :  et,  manus  ne  facile  imposueris,  ne  participes  aliena  delicta 
— Itaq;  pro  cujueq ;  personae  conditione  ac  dispositione.  etiam 
estate,  cunctatio  baptismi  utilior  est :  praecique  tamen  circa  parvu- 
los.     Quid  enim  necesse  est  [  ]   sponsores  etiam  periculo 

ingeri  ?  quia  et  ipsi  per  mortalitatem  destituere  promissiones  suas 
possunt,  et  proventu  malse  indolis  falli.  Ait  quidem  Dominus. 
Nolite  illos  prohibere  ad  me  venire.  Veniant  ergo  dum  adoles- 
cunt,  veniant  dum  discunt,  dum  quo  veniant  docentur  :  riant  Chris- 
tiani  quum  Christum  nosse  potuerint.  Quid  f'estinat  innocens  aetas 
ad  remissionem  peccatorum  ?  Cautius  agetur  in  secularibus;  ut 
cui  substantia  terrena  non  credit ur,  Divina  credatur.  Norint  pete- 
re  salutem,  ut  petenti  dedisse  videaris.  Non  minori  de  causa  in- 
nupti  quoq;  procrastinandi,  in  quibus  tentatio  pram^rata  est;  tarn 
virginibus  per  maturitotem,  quam  viduis  per  vacationem.  donee 
aut  nubant  aut  continentiae  corroborentur.  Si  qui  pondus  intelli- 
gant  baptismi,  magis  timebunt  conseQUtioncm  quam  dilationent 
Fides  integra  secura  est  de  salute. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  115 

"  But  they  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer  Baptism, 
should  know,  that  it  is  not  to  be  given  rashly.  "  Give  to 
every  one  that  asketh  thee,"  has  its  proper  subject,  and  re- 
lates to  almsgiving.  But  that  command  is  rather  to  be 
regarded  ;  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  to  dogs,  neither 
cast  your  pearls  before  swine;  and,  Lay  hands  suddenly 
on  no  man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's  sins.  There- 
fore according  to  every  person's  condition  and  disposi- 
tion, and  age  also,  the  delay  of  Baptism  is  more  profita- 
ble, especially  as  to  little  children.  For  why  is  it  ne- 
cessary that  the  sponsors  should  incur  danger?  For 
they  may  either  fail  of  their  promises  by  death,  or  may  be 
disappointed  by  a  child's  proving  to  be  of  a  wicked  dis- 
position. Our  Lord  says  indeed,  forbid  them  not  to  come 
to  me.  Let  them  come  then,  when  they  are  grown  up  ; 
let  them  come  when  they  understand  ;  let  them  come, 
when  they  are  taught  whither  they  are  to  come ;  let  them 
become  Christians  when  they  are  able  to  know  Christ. 
Why  should  their  innocent  age  make  haste  to  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin  1  Men  act  more  cautiously  in  temporal  con- 
cerns. Worldly  substance  is  not  committed  to  those,  to 
whom  divine  things  are  entrusted.  Let  them  know  how 
to  ask  for  salvation,  that  you  may  seem  to  give  to  him 
that  asketh." 

"  It  is  for  a  reaspn  of  no  less  importance,  that  unmar- 
ried persons,  both  those  who  were  never  married,  and 
those  who  have  been  deprived  of  their  partners,  should, 
on  account  of  their  exposure  to  temptation,  be  kept  wait- 
ing, till  they  are  either  married,  or  confirmed  in  a  habit 
of  chaste  single  life.  They  who  understand  the  impor- 
tance of  Baptism,  will  be  more  afraid  of  hastening  to  re- 
ceive it,  than  of  delay  :  an  entire  faith  secures  salvation." 

An  attentive  and  impartial  examination  of  this  passage 
will  I  think  make  the  following  things  evident. 


116 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


1.  The  object  of  Tertullian  is,  to  caution  the  Chris- 
tian church  against  a  hasty,  premature,  rash  administra- 
tion of  the  rite  of  baptism  : — non  temere  credendum  esse, 
— it  is  not  to  be  rashly  administered.  He  meets  the  ob- 
jections which  some  might  make  to  delaying  the  ordi- 
nance, or  to  declining  to  administer  it,  by  appealing  to  the 
Scriptures  ;  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  to  the  dogs  ;  lay 
hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  &c. 

2.  He  urges  the  delay  of  baptism  in  regard  to  several 
sorts  of  persons,  especially  in  regard  to  infants.  "  A  de- 
lay of  baptism,"  he  says,  "  is  more  profitable  according  to 
every  one's  condition,  disposition,  or  age,  but  especially 
in  regard  to  little  ones,  parvulos,  [nuidia,  figtcffu.]  For 
what  necessity  is  there  that  the  sponsors  should  incur 
danger  ?  For  they  may  fail  of  their  promises  by  reason 
of  mortality,  or  be  disappointed  by  the  springing  up  of  a 
bad  disposition." 

The  argument  is  plainly  this,  "  The  little  ones"  espe- 
cially (praecipue)  "  ought  to  have  their  baptism  delayed." 
Why  ?  Because  a  bad  disposition  may  spring  up,  and 
the  sponsors,  (those  who  offered  them  up  in  baptism, 
and  became  responsible  for  their  religious  education, 
and  their  good  behaviour,)  be  thus  disappointed  and  fail 
of  performing  their  engagements.  The  whole  argument 
clearly  shows,  from  its  very  nature,  that  infants  must  be 
intended  by  parvulos.  If  not,  why  did  they  need  spon- 
sors 1  They  could  engage  for  themselves.  Moreover, 
if  adults  were  intended,  then  their  disposition  would 
have  already  sprung  up,  and  developed  itself;  and  what 
danger  would  there  have  been  of  the  disappointment 
which  Tertullian  fears  ? 

The  whole  passage,  by  the  most  certain  implication, 
shows  that  the  "  little  ones"  (parvulos)  were  such  as  had 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  117 

not  developed  their  disposition,  and  such  as  did  not  and 
could  not  stand  sponsors  for  themselves.  Now  Tertul- 
lian  cautioned  the  sponsors  not  to  take  such  engagements 
on  themselves,  as  all  their  efforts  to  fulfil  them  might  be 
frustrated. 

3.  This  passage  clearly  shows,  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  commonly  practised  at  the  time  when  Tertullian  liv- 
ed, that  is,  a  hundred  years  after  the  apostles. 

This  appears  from  the  reasoning.  He  notices  a  text 
which  was  doubtless  appealed  to  by  those  who  were  ac- 
customed to  baptize  their  children.  Our  Lord  says  in- 
deed, do  not  forbid  them  (parvulos)  to  come  unto  me. 
The  force  of  this  he  feels  it  necessary  to  parry.  "  Let 
them  come,  then,"  he  says,  "  when  they  are  grown  up  : 
let  them  come  when  they  learn  :  [let  them  come]  when 
they  are  taught  whither  they  are  coming."  All  this 
shows  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  that  Tertullian 
was  attacking  the  custom  of  bringing  children  to  be 
baptized  before  they  were  grown  up,  or  had  learn- 
ed, or  had  been  taught  whither  they  were  to  come  in  bap- 
tism ;  that  is,  that  he  was  attacking  the  custom  of  having 
them  baptized  in  an  infantile  state.  This  must  be  ad- 
mitted, or  there  is  no  sense  in  the  passage.  And  what 
follows  makes  it,  if  possible,  still  more  clear  that  he  was 
opposing  such  a  custom. 

"  Let  them  become  Christians"  he  says,  "  when  they 
are  able  to  know  Christ."  Their  being  devoted  to  Christ 
in  baptism  he  represents  as  their  becoming  Christians ; 
and  he  objects  to  their  becoming  Christians  at  an  age, 
when  they  were  incapable  of  knowing  Christ.  Again  he 
says  :  "  Why  should  those  who  are  of  an  age  that  is  in- 
nocent, be  eager  for  remission  of  sins  ?"  That  is,  why 
11 


US 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


should  those  who  are  so  young  as  to  be  incapable  of  sin- 
ning, be  eager  to  obtain  forgiveness  ? 

With  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  Tertullian's 
religious  opinions  we  have  no  concern  here.  Our  only 
inquiry  is,  whether  it  is  implied  in  the  passage  above 
quoted  from  his  writings,  that  it  was  in  his  day  the  pre- 
vailing custom  to  baptize  little  children.  That  there  was 
such  a  custom  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  he  made  op- 
position against  it  as  actually  existing. 

He  goes  on  with  his  objection  against  the  practice  of 
Infant  Baptism.  "  Men  act  with  more  caution,"  he  says, 
"  in  temporal  matters.  Worldly  substance  is  not  com- 
mitted to  those,  to  whom  divine  things  are  entrusted." 
That  is,  little  children,  as  all  agree,  are  not  to  be  entrust- 
ed with  the  care  of  worldly  substance  ;  and  yet  you  en- 
trust them  with  divine  things,  which  are  so  much  more 
important. 

Still,  not  content  with  all  this,  he  repeats  an  idea 
which  he  had  before  suggested.  "  Let  them  know  how 
to  seek  for  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  give  to  them 
who  ask."  That  is  ;  you  have  been  accustomed  to  give 
baptism  to  those  who  could  not  ask  for  it.  Discontinue 
this  practice  ;  and  give  baptism  to  those  only  who  are 
capable  of  requesting  it  for  themselves. 

He  finally  urges  delay  in  administering  baptism  to 
unmarried  persons,  on  account  of  their  being  peculiarly 
exposed  to  temptation.  He  does  not  forbid  baptism  in 
their  case,  but  urges  the  postponement  of  it,  until  they 
are  either  married,  or  established  in  habits  of  conti- 
nence. He  says  ;  "  If  any  understand  the  weight  of  bap- 
tismal obligations,  they  will  be  more  fearful  about  taking 
them,  than  about  putting  them  off." 

From  this  famous,  singular,  and  controverted  passage 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  119 

in  Tertullian,  it  is,  then,  as  we  have  seen,  perfectly  clear, 
that  there  was  in  his  day  a  practice  of  baptizing  infants, 
that  is,  those  who  had,  and  could  have,  no  knowledge  of 
Christ ;  that  he  was  himself  strongly  opposed  to  the  prac- 
tice ;  and  that  he  was  opposed  for  reasons  which  were  pe- 
culiar to  him  as  a  Montanist. 

The  reasoning  of  Tertullian  against  the  baptism  of 
unmarried  persons,  is  the  same  as  against  the  baptism  of 
infants  ;  namely,  that  they  are  exposed  to  temptation,  and 
in  danger  of  falling  into  sin.  But  if  Christian  rites  are 
to  be  deferred  until  men  are  free  from  temptation,  and 
the  danger  of  sin ;  when  are  they  to  be  performed  1 

It  should  be  specially  noted,  that  Tertullian  does  not 
appeal  to  any  usage  of  the  church,  or  of  any  part  of  the 
church,  from  the  apostle's  day  to  his,  in  support  of  his 
opinions  against  Infant  Baptism.  Now  if  it  had  not  been 
the  uniform  practice  of  the  Christian  church,  from  the  be- 
ginning, to  baptize  infants,  how  easy  would  it  have  been 
for  him  to  say  so,  and  to  represent  Infant  Baptism  as  a 
hurtful  innovation,  and  thus  to  put  it  down  at  once.  He 
showed  great  zeal  against  the  practice  ;  and  if  he  could 
have  opposed  it  by  asserting  that  it  was  a  practice  un- 
known in  the  early  Christian  churches  ;  could  he  have 
failed  of  using  such  an  argument  ?  It  is  utterly  improba- 
ble. 

Suppose  that  Tertullian  had  set  himself  to  argue  on 
the  other  side  in  the  same  manner  as  on  this  ;  suppose 
he  had  taken  great  pains  to  point  out  the  evils  of  neglect- 
ing or  delaying  Infant  Baptism,  and  had  earnestly  expos- 
tulated with  those  who  exposed  themselves  and  others  to 
those  evils ;  would  it  not  be  implied,  that  Infant  Bap- 
tism was  neglected  or  delayed  in  his  day  ?  And  suppose 
he  had  shown  great  zeal  to  support  Infant  Baptism,  and 
bad  labored  to  persuade  the  churches  not  to  neglect  it, 


120  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

and  yet  had  made  no  mention  of  its  having  been  handed 
down  from  the  apostles,  or  of  its  having  ever  been  the 
common  usage  of  the  Christian  church ;  would  not  every 
one  say,  this  is  a  presumptive  proof  that  he  was  endea- 
vouring to  support  an  innovation,  and  that  there  had  been 
no  established  usage  of  the  church  in  favor  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism, to  which  he  was  able  to  appeal  in  support  of  his 
opinion  ?  Could  it  be  supposed  that  a  learned  Christian 
bishop,  within  a  hundred  years  of  the  apostles,  would  be 
ignorant  of  what  the  custom  was  which  they  handed  down 
to  the  churches,  or  would  neglect  to  refer  to  the  usage  of 
the  churches,  as  far  as  he  was  able,  for  the  support  of  his 
own  views  ? 

Perhaps  some  one  may  say,  that,  if  Infant  Baptism 
had  been  the  general  practice  of  the  Christian  church,  it 
must  have  been  expressly  mentioned  by  some  writer  pre- 
vious to  Tertullian.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that 
Tertullian  is  the  first  considerable  writer,  whose  remains 
are  extant,  except  Justin  Martyr.  Irenaeus  and  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  were  his  contemporaries.  Now  are  there 
not  many  questions  of  great  moment  respecting  the  ca- 
nonical credit  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
respecting  various  important  doctrines  and  usages  in  the 
Christian  church,  which  are  not  mentioned  in  any  of  the 
scanty  remains  of  the  first  ages  after  the  apostles  ?  But 
it  is  worthy  of  being  specially  remembered,  that  the  first 
express  mention  we  find  of  Infant  Baptism  clearly  implies, 
that  it  was  the  common  practice. 

As  to  the  construction  which  R.  Robinson,  and  oth- 
ers who  agree  with  him,  put  upon  the  testimony  of  Ter- 
tullian— how  can  any  man  think  that  it  h^s  the  least 
shadow  of  reason  to  support  it,  or  that  it  can  s^antl  a  mo- 
ment before  an  impartial  examination  ?* 
*  See  Appendix  A. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  121 

Tlic  testimony  of  Origen. 

"  Since  Origen  was  born,  a.  d.  185,  that  is  85  years 
after  the  apostles,  his  Grandfather,  or  at  least  his  Great- 
Grandfather  must  have  lived  in  the  apostle's  time.  And 
as  he  could  not  be  ignorant  whether  he  was  himself  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  so  he  had  no  farther  than  his  own  fam- 
ily to  go  for  inquiry,  how  it  was  practised  in  the  times  of 
the  apostles.  Besides,  Origen  was  a  very  learned  man, 
and  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  usages  of  the  churches  ; 
in  most  of  which  he  had  also  travelled ;  for  as  he  was 
born  and  bred  at  Alexandria,  so  it  appears  from  Eusebius, 
that  he  had  lived  in  Greece,  and  at  Rome,  and  in  Cap- 
padocia,  and  Arabia,  and  spent  the  main  part  of  his  life 
in  Syria  and  Palestine."* 

The  principal  passages  in  the  writings  of  Origen,  in 
which  the  Baptism  of  Infants  is  mentioned,  are  the  fol- 
lowing. 

Homily  8th,  on  Levit.  c.  12. 

"  According  to  the  usage  of  the  church,  baptism  is 
given  even  to  infants  ;  when  if  there  were  nothing  in  in- 
fants which  needed  forgiveness  and  mercy,  the  grace  of 
baptism  would  seem  to  be  superfluous.! 

This  testimony  needs  no  comment  in  regard  to  the 
fact,  that  infants  were  baptized. 

Homily  on  Luke  14. 
"  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins.     Of 
what  sins  ?     Or  when  have  they  sinned  ?     Or  can  there 

*  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  1.  p.  73. 

t  Secundum  ecclesise  observantiam  etiam  parvulis  baptismum 
dari :  cum  utiq ;  si  nihil  esset  in  parvulis  quod  ad  remissionem  de- 
beret  et  indulgentiain  pertinere,  gratia  baptismi  superflua  videre- 
tur. 

11* 


122  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

be  any  reason  for  the  laver  in  their  case,  unless  it  be  ac- 
cording to  the  sense  we  have  mentioned  above  ;  viz.  no 
one  is  free  from  pollution,  though  he  has  lived  but  one  day 
upon  earth.  And  because  by  baptism  native  pollution  is 
taken  away,  therefore  infants  are  baptized"* 

But  the  testimony  of  Origen  which  is  the  most  impor- 
tant of  all,  is  in  his 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  lib.  5. 

"  For  this  cause  it  was  that  the  church  received  an 
order  from  the  apostles,  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants. "t 

These  testimonies  need  no  explanation.  They  not 
only  imply  that  Infant  Baptism  was  generally  known  and 
practised,  but  also  mention  it  as  an  order  received  from 
the  apostles.  And  although  some  may  doubt  the  correct- 
ness of  Origen's  reasoning  as  to  the  ground  of  the  prac- 
tice ;  no  one  can  reasonably  doubt  that  he  is  a  good  wit- 
ness of  the  fact,  that  such  was  the  practice,  and  that  such 
was  understood  to  be  the  source  from  which  it  was  de- 
rived. 

To  any  objections  which  have  been  made  to  the  gen- 
uineness of  these  quotations  from  Origen,  I  refer  to  Wall's 
History,  Chap.  5,  as  containing  a  satisfactory  answer.  I 
shall  cite  only  the  following. 

"  In  these  translations  of  Origen,  (translations  from 
the  original  Greek,  which  is  lost,  into  Latin,) — "  if  there 
were  found  but  one  or  two  places,  and  those  in  Rufinus 

*  Parvuli  baptizantur  in  remissionem  peccatorum.  Quornm 
peccatorum  vel  quo  tempore  peccaverunt  ?  aut  quomodo  potest  ulla 
lavacri  in  parvulis  ratio  subsistere,  nisi  jnxta  ilium  sensum  de  quo 
paulo  ante  diximus  ;  Nullus  inundus  a  sorde,  nee  si  unius  diei  qui- 
dem  fuerit  vita  ejus  super  terram  ?  Et  quia  per  baptismi  sacra- 
mentum  nativitatis  sordes  deponuntur,  propterea  baptizantur  et 
parvuli. 

t  "  Pro  hoc  et  ecclesia  ab  apostolis  traditionem  suscepit,  etiam 
parvulis  baptismum  dare." 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  123 

alone,  which  speak  of  Infant  Baptism ;  there  might  have 
been  suspicion  of  their  being  interpolations.  But  when 
there  are  so  many  of  them,  brought  in  on  several  occa- 
sions, in  translations  made  by  several  men,  who  were  of 
several  parties,  and  enemies  to  one  another,  (as  Hieroni 
and  Rufinus  were,)  and  upon  no  temptation,  (for  it  is  cer- 
tain that  in  their  time  there  was  no  dispute  about  Infant 
Baptism,) — that  they  should  all  be  forged  without  any 
reason,  is  absurd  to  think.  Especially  if  we  consider 
that  these  translators  lived  not  much  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  after  Origen's  time ;  the  Christians  then  must 
have  known  whether  infants  had  been  used  to  be  baptiz- 
ed in  Origen's  time,  or  not ; — the  very  tradition  from  fa- 
ther to  son  must  have  carried  a  memory  of  it  for  so  short 
a  time.  And  then,  for  them  to  make  Origen  speak  of  a 
thing  which  all  the  world  knew  was  not  in  use  in  his 
time,  must  have  made  them  ridiculous." 

Testimony  of  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  150  years  after  the 
Apostles. 

In  the  year  253,  sixty  six  Bishops  met  in  Council  at 
Carthage.  Fidus,  a  country  Bishop,  had  sent  a  letter 
with  two  cases,  on  which  he  desired  their  opinion.  The 
one,  which  related  to  our  present  subject,  was,  whether 
an  infant  might  be  baptized  before  it  was  eight  days  old. 
It  will  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  cite  the  following 
passages  from  the  Letter  of  the  Bishops. 

"  Cyprian  and  the  rest  of  the  Bishops  who  were  pre- 
sent in  the  council,  sixty  six  in  number,  to  Fidus  our 
Brother,  Greeting." 

— "  As  to  the  case  of  Infants  ; — whereas  you  judge 
that  they  must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three  days 
after  they  art  born,  and  that  the  rule  of  circumcision  is 


124  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

to  be  observed,  that  no  one  should  be  baptized  and  sancti- 
fied before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is  born ;  We  were  all 
in  the  Council  of  a  very  different  opinion.  As  for  what 
you  thought  proper  to  be  done,  not  one  was  of  your  mind  ; 
but  we  all  rather  judged  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God 

is  to  be  denied  to  no  human   being  that  is   born." 

"  This  therefore,  dear  brother,  was  our  opinion  in  the 
Council ;  that  we  ought  not  to  hinder  any  person  from 
,  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God,  who  is  merciful  and  kind 
to  all.  And  this  rule,  as  it  holds  for  all,  is,  we  think, 
more  especially  to  be  observed  in  reference  to  infants, 
even  to  those  newly  born."* 

Respecting  these  quotations,  I  would  suggest  the  fol- 
lowing remarks. 

First.  However  fanciful  or  incorrect  the  opinions  of 
Cyprian  and  the  Bishops  connected  with  him  were,  re- 
specting the  grounds  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  their  testimony 
to  the  fact,  which  is  all  we  now  inquire  after,  holds  good. 

Second.  The  quotations  above  made  from  the  letter 
of  the  Bishops  prove  incontrovertibly,  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  well  known  and  commonly  practised  at  that  time.  It 
is  plain  that  Fidus  who  put  the  question,  and   the  Bish- 


*  Cyprianus  et  cscteri  Collegoe,  qui  in  Concilio  affuerunt,  nume- 
ro  66.  Fido  fratri  salutem 

Quantum  vero  ad  causam  infantium  pertinet,  quos  dixisti  intra 
secundum  vel  tertium  diem,  quo  nati  sunt,  conslitutos  baptizari  non 
oportere  :  et  considerandam  esse  legem  circumcisionis  antique ; 
ut  intra  oct.avum  diem,  eum  qui  natus  est  baptizandum  et  sancti- 
ficandum  non  putares,  longe  aliud  in  Concilio  nostro  omnibus  vi- 
sum est.  In  hoc  enim  quod  tu  putabas  esse  faciendum  nemo  con- 
sensit:  sed  universi  potius  judicavimus  nulli  hominum  nato  mis- 
ericord iam  Dei  et  gratiam  denegandam. 

Et  idcirco,  frater  carissime,  hrec  fuit  in  Concilio  nostra  senten- 
tia,  a  baptismo  atq  ;  a  gratia  Dei,  qui  omnibus  et  misericors  et  be- 
nignus  et  pius  est,  neminem  per  nos  debere  prohiberi.  Quod  cum 
circa  universos  observandum  sit  atq;  retinendum ;  magis  circa 
infantes  ipsos  et  recens  natos  observandum  putamus. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  125 

ops  who  resolved  it,  both  took  it  for  granted  that  infants 
were  to  be  baptized  ;  only  Fidus  thought  it  should  be 
omitted  till  the  eighth  day. 

Third.  The  contempt  which  some  men  have  cast 
upon  this  testimony,  must  have  been,  I  should  think,  al- 
together affected  and  forced.  In  sober  truth,  the  testimo- 
ny has  great  weight ;  as  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that 
sixty  six  Bishops,  living  150  years  after  the  apostles,  and 
so  near  the  time  of  Origen  and  Tertullian,  and  headed 
by  the  most  distinguished  man  then  in  the  Christian 
church,  should  not  have  doubted,  no,  not  one  of  them, 
the  propriety  of  applying  baptism  to  infants,  even  those 
newly  born,  if  the  catholic  church  hitherto  had  not  made 
it  their  common  practice. 

The  arguments  of  Wall  prove,  beyond  all  question, 
the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  of  Cyprian  and  his  fellow 
Bishops.  (See  History  of  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  I.  chap.  6.) 
The  Epistle  contains  incontrovertible,  overpowering  evi- 
dence of  the  usual  practice  of  the  churches  in  Cyprian's 
time,  and,  of  course,  in  times  previous  to  his.  If  the 
practice  had  been  a  novelty,  or  if  there  had  been  any  con- 
siderable division  or  controversy  in  the  churches  respect- 
ing it ;  how  could  such  a  circumstance  have  been  forgot- 
ten, or  passed  over  in  silence  1 

There  is  another  passage  in  Cyprian,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  children  who  were  carried  in  the  arms  of  their 
apostate  parents  to  heathen  sacrifices,  and  says  of  such 
children,  that  "  they  lost  what  they  obtained  immediately 
after  they  were  born  ;" — referring  without  any  doubt,  to 
their  baptism  ;  which  was  regarded  as  a  gift  or  favor 
committed  to  them. 

Optatus. 

This  father  lived  2G0  years  after  the  apostles.     In  the 


126  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

passage  to  which  I  shall  refer,  he  had  been  comparing 
a  Christian's  putting  on  Christ  in  Baptism,  to  putting  on 
a  garment.  He  then  says;  "But  lest  any  one  say,  I 
speak  irreverently  in  calling  Christ  a  garment,  let  him 
read  what  the  Apostle  says,  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.  Oh  ! 
what  a  garment  is  this,  which  is  always  one,  and  which  fits 
all  ages  and  all  shapes.  It  is  neither  too  large  for  infants, 
nor  too  small  for  young  men,  nor  does  it  need  any  altera- 
tion for  women."* 

The  meaning  of  this  passage  in  regard  to  the  subject 
before  us,  is  perfectly  plain. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  2G0  years  after  the  Apostles. 

The  passage  I  shall  cite  is  from  his  Oration  on  Basil. 
Orat.  20.  After  comparing  Basil  to  Abraham,  Moses 
etc.,  he  compares  him  to  Samuel,  and  undertakes  to  show 
the  points  of  similitude  between  them. 

"  Samuel  among  them  that  call  upon  his  name  was 
given  before  he  was  born,  and  immediately  after  his  birth 
was  consecrated,  and  he  became  an  anointer  of  kings  and 
priests  out  of  a  horn.  And  was  not  this  man,  (Basil,) 
consecrated  to  God  in  his  infancy  from  the  womb,  and 
carried  to  the  steps,"  (doubtless  the  baptismal  font,)  "  in 
a  coat?"f  He  plainly  referred  to  the  coat  which  was  us- 
ed in  Baptism,  and  compared  it  to  the   coat  which  was 


*Sed  ne  quis  dicat,  temere  a  me  Filium  Dei  vestem  esse  dictum  : 
legal  Apostolum  tlicentem  ;  Quotquot  in  nomine  Christi  baptizati 
estis,  Christum  induistis.  O  tunica  semper  una,  et  innumerabilis, 
quse  decenter  vestiat  et  omnes  aetates  et  forma s  :  nee  in  infanti- 
bus  rugatur,  nee  in  juvenibus  tenditur,  nee  in  feeminis  matatur. 

t  SauovrjX  ir  rot's  ininaXovfiivoig  to  ovoua  uvrov,  xal  iorbg  71QO 
ytw/fOtoyg,  xal  utra  t/,v  y*iT>(o/)  iv&vg  itQog,  xal  /nie>v  (JaOi?.iag  xui 
(egiag  Silx  ToJ  xi^arog.  rOmog$i  otfx  ix  pohjovg  xaditQwttirog  a/70 
tit'/TQag,  xal  utr'a  t»,c  Sinloidog  >  udedofisrog  r™  p/jtuTi. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  127 

made  for  Samuel  by  his  mother.  This  is  a  clear  testimo- 
ny to  what  was  usual  in  regard  to  baptism   at  that  time. 

Wall  has  given  an  abstract  of  Gregory's  oration  on 
Baptism,  to  which  I  must  refer  the  reader.  Gregory  first 
gives  his  opinion  in  favor  of  delaying  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren till  they  are  three  years  old.  Still  he  expresses  it  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  imply,  that  the  usual  practice  was 
against  him.  But  on  reconsidering  the  danger  to  which 
infants  are  exposed,  and  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
he  advises  that  infants  should  be  baptized.  He  and  Ter- 
tullian  are  the  only  men  in  the  early  churches,  who  speak 
of  delaying  baptism  at  all. 

From  Ambrose,  who  flourished  274  years  after  the 
apostles,  I  shall  make  two  quotations. 

The  first  is  from  his  commentary  on  Luke  c.  1.  Af- 
ter showing  how  John  in  several  parts  of  his  office  resem- 
bled Elias,  and  having  mentioned  the  miracle  of  that  Pro- 
phet in  dividing  the  river  Jordan,  he  adds  these  words : 

"  But  perhaps  this  may  seem  to  be  fulfilled  in  our 
time  and  in  the  Apostle's  time.  For  that  return  of  the 
waters  backward  towards  the  head  of  the  river,  which  was 
caused  by  Elias  when  the  river  was  divided,  (as  the 
Scripture  says,  Jordan  was  driven  back,)  signified  the 
mystery  of  the  laver  of  salvation,  which  was  afterwards  to 
be  instituted,  by  which  those  who  are  baptized  in  infancy 
are  reformed  from  a  wicked  state  to  the  primitive  state  of 
their  nature."* 

In  this  place  Ambrose  plainly  signifies  that  infants 

*  Sed  fortasse  hoc  supra  nos  et  supra  Apostolos  videatur  exple- 
tura.  Nam  ille  sub  Elia  diviso  amne  fluvialium  recursus  undarum 
in  originem  fluminis  (sicut  dicit  Scriptura  ;  Jordanes  convursus  est 
retrorsum)  signifieavit  salutaris  lavacri  futura  mysteria ;  per  quae 
in  primordia  naturae  suae,  qui  baptizati  fuerint  parvuli,  a  malitia  re- 
formantur. 


128  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

were  baptized  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  as  well  as  in  his 
own  time. 

The  other  passage  is  from  the  book  of  Ambrose  res- 
pecting Abraham.  He  is  speaking  of  circumcision  as  be- 
longing to  all,  whether  older  or  younger.  He  says,  nei- 
ther a  proselyte  that  is  old,  nor  an  infant  born  in  the  house 
is  excepted,  because  every  age  is  obnoxious  to  sin,  and 
therefore  every  age  is  proper  for  the  sacrament.  He  ap- 
plies this  to  spiritual  circumcision  and  to  baptism,  and 
says,  that  all  must  be  circumcised — so  as  not  to  practice 
sin  any  more ; — -for  no  person  comes  to  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  but  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  Then  after 
quoting  the  words  of  Christ,  "  unless  any  one  is  born  of 
water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God;"  he  says  ;  "You  see  he  excepts  no  one, 
not  even  an  infant,  non  infantem, — nor  one  that  is  hinder- 
ed by  any  unavoidable  necessity." 

There  could  be  no  more  direct  and  unequivocal  evi- 
dence that  baptism  was,  in  the  time  of  Ambrose,  consid- 
ered proper  and  necessary  for  infants. 

Chrysostom,  who  lived  280  years  after  the  apostles, 
plainly  shows  what  was  the  practice  of  the  churches  in 
regard  to  Infant  Baptism  in  his  day,  and  how  he  regard- 
ed it  himself. 

Homily  40,  on  Genesis. 
He  first  speaks  of  circumcision,  and  then  observes 
that  God  is  much  more  favorable  to  Christians  in  the 
baptism  which  he  has  appointed  instead  of  it.  In  remark- 
ing upon  this  he  says,  "  But  our  circumcision,  that  is,  the 
grace  of  baptism,  jj  di  ijfieitQa  ntgizofAtj,  r(  tov  fianxiG- 
[.laTog  tiyo)  xu<jt,g,  gives  cure  without  pain. — And  it 
has  no  determinate  time,   as  circumcision  had ;  but  it  is 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  129 

proper  that  this  circumcision  without  hands  should  be  re- 
ceived by  one  in  the  beginning  of  life,  or  in  the  middle 
of  it,  or  in  old  age." 

There  is  another  passage  in  a  Homily  of  Chrysostom 
respecting  those  who  are  baptized,  which  is  cited  by  Ju- 
lian and  by  Austin,  and  which  contains  a  very  explicit 
recognition  of  Infant  Baptism.  He  says,  "  Some  think 
that  the  heavenly  grace  (of  baptism)  consists  only  in  for- 
giveness of  sins  ;  but  I  have  reckoned  up  ten  advantages 
of  it.  For  this  cause  we  baptize  infants  also,  though  they 
are  not  defiled  with  sin  ;"  or  as  Austin  has  quoted  it  from 
the  Greek  of  Chrysostom, — "  though  they  have  not  any 
transgressions," — meaning,  doubtless,  actual  sins. 

Augustine,  (or  Austin)  a  Christian  father  highly  dis- 
tinguished both  for  his  learning  and  piety,  flourished  288 
years  after  the  apostles.  The  testimonies  which  he  gave 
to  the  fact,  that  infants  were  baptized,  and  that  this  usage 
was  universally  understood  and  acknowledged  to  have 
been  handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  are  very  plain  and 
explicit. 

Remarking  on  the  passage  1  Cor.  7:  14,  Austin 
says ;  "  There  were  then  Christian  infants,  (parvu- 
li  Christiani,)  who  were  sanctified,"  that  is,  baptized, 
"  by  the  authority  of  one  or  both  of  their  parents." 
In  another  place,  he  speaks  of  the  good  which  Christian 
baptism  does  to  infants,  and  says,  that  the  faith  of  those 
by  whom  the  child  is  brought  to  be  consecrated,  is  profita- 
ble to  the  child  (prodesse  parvulo  eorum  fidem  a  quibus 
consecrandus  offertur).  In  his  book  against  the  Donatists, 
he  speaks  of  those  who  were  baptized  in  infancy  or  in 
childhood  (qui  infantes  vel  pueri  baptizati  sunt). 

In  the  same  book,  he  says,  where  baptism  is  had,  if 
faith  is  by  necessity  wanting,  salvation  is  secured.     He 
12 


130  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

then  adds  :  "  Which  the  whole  body  of  the  church  holds, 
as  delivered  to  them,  in  the  case  of  little  infants  who  are 
baptized  ;  (cum  parvuli  infantes  baptizantur  ;)  who  cer- 
tainly cannot  believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness, 
etc.  And  yet  no  Christian  will  say,  they  are  baptized  in 
vain." 

Although  Austin  here  mentioned  Infant  Baptism  in- 
cidentally, his  words  show  that  it  was  universally  practis- 
ed, and  had  been  so  from  time  immemorial,  and  that  no 
Christian  of  any  sect  was  of  a  different  opinion.  "  And 
they  had  only  300  years  to  look  back  to  the  apostles  ; 
whereas  we  now  have  near  1800.  And  the  writings  and 
records  which  are  now  lost,  were  then  extant,  and  easi- 
ly known." 

Austin's  Letter  to  Boniface,  which  treats  mainly  of 
the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism,  shows  beyond  the  possibil- 
ity of  doubt,  that  it  was  universally  practised  by  the 
church,  and   was  understood  to  be  a  divine  appointment. 

In  his  book  on  Genesis,  he  says  :  "  The  custom  of 
our  mother  the  Church  in  baptizing  infants  must  not  be 
disregarded,  nor  accounted  useless ;  and  it  must  by  all 
means  be  believed  to  be  a  tradition,  (or  order)  of  the 
apostles  ;  apostolica  traditio."  And  in  accordance  with 
this,  he  says,  in  another  place  :  "  It  is  most  justly  believ- 
ed to  be  no  other  than  a  thing  delivered,"  (ordered,  or 
taught,)  "  by  apostolic  authority  ;  that  is,  that  it  came  not 
by  any  general  council,  or  by  any  authority  later  or  less 
than  that  of  the  apostles."  And  again  he  speaks  of  bap- 
tizing infants  "  by  the  authority  of  the  whole  church, 
which  was  undoubtedly  delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles." 

In  his  book  against  the  Donatists,  while  maintaining  the 
validity  of  baptism,  though  administered  to  those  who  are 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  131 

destitute  of  faith,  he  refers  especially  to  those  who  were 
baptized  when  they  were  infants  or  youths;  "  maxime 
qui  infantes  vel  pueri  baptizati  sunt." 

The  universal  acknowledgement  of  Infant  Baptism  as 
a  practice  derived  from  the  apostles,  is  brought  out  fre- 
quently and  very  clearly  in  the  controversy  between  Aus- 
tin and  the  Pelagians.  The  Pelagians,  who  denied  orig- 
inal sin,  were  pressed  with  the  argument  from  Infant 
Baptism.  It  would  have  been  very  much  to  their  pur- 
pose to  assert,  had  it  been  in  their  power,  that  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  was  not  enjoined  by  Christ  or  his  apostles. 
If  they  had  known  any  society  of  Christians  existing  in 
their  day  or  before,  who  disowned  Infant  Baptism  ;  their 
interest  would  have  led  them  to  plead  such  an  example 
in  their  own  behalf.  But  they  were  far  from  any  thing 
like  this.  Celestius  owns  that  infants  are  to  be  baptized 
according  to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church  ;  and  Pela- 
gius  complained  that  some  men  slandered  him  as  if  he  de- 
nied baptism  to  infants  ;  but  declared  that  he  never  had 
heard  of  any  one,  no  not  even  of  any  impious  heretic  or 
sectary,  who  denied  Infant  Baptism. 

Now,  according  to  Wall,  (to  whom  I  am  chiefly  in- 
debted for  these  testimonies  and  results,)  if  there  had 
been  any  Antipedobaptist  church  in  the  world,  these  two 
men  must  have  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  of  them,  be- 
ing so  great  travellers  as  they  were.  For  they  were  born 
and  bred,  the  one  in  Britain,  the  other  in  Ireland.  They 
lived  a  long  time  at  Rome,  to  which  all  the  people  of  the 
known  world  had  resort.  They  were  both  for  some  time 
at  Carthage  in  Africa.  Then  the  one  settled  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  the  other  travelled  through  all  the  noted  church- 
es in  Europe  and  Asia.  It  is  impossible  there  should 
have  been   any  church,  which  had  a  singular  practice  as 


132  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

to  Infant  Baptism,  but  they  must  have  heard  of  it.  So 
that  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  there  was  not  at  that 
time,  nor  within  the  memory  of  the  men  of  that  time,  any 
Christian  society  which  denied  baptism  to  infants. 

I  shall  here  subjoin  an  argument  of  great  weight,  and 
nearly  in  the  words  of  Wall,  Vol.  I.  chap.  21 ;  namely  : 
that  Irenaeus,  Epiphanius,  Philastrius,  Austin,  and  Theo- 
doret,  who  wrote  catalogues  of  all  the  sects  and  sorts  of 
Christians  that  they  knew  or  had  ever  heard  of,  make  no 
mention  of  any  who  denied  Infant  Baptism,  except  those 
who  denied  all  Baptism.  Each  of  them,  he  says,  men- 
tion some  sects  that  used  no  baptism  at  all ;  and  these 
sects  Austin  represents  as  disowning  the  Scripture,  or  a 
great  part  of  it.  But  of  all  the  sects  that  acknowledged 
water  baptism  in  any  case,  no  one  is  mentioned  that  de- 
nied it  to  infants. 

Now  since  all  these  authors  make  it  their  business  to 
rehearse  the  opinions  and  usages  which  the  various  sects 
held  different  from  the  church  at  large,  and  yet  mention 
no  difference  in  this  respect ;  we  may  well  conclude  that 
all  of  them  practised  in  this  particular  as  the  catholic 
church  did.  If  the  catholic  church  had  not  baptized  in- 
fants, and  the  sectaries  had,  it  would  have  been  noted. 
And  if  the  catholic  church  had  baptized  infants,  and  the 
sectaries  had  not,  that  also  would  have  been  noted.  For 
these  writers  tell  us  that  each  sect  had  its  peculiarities. 
And  they  mention  differences  of  much  less  moment  than 
this  would  have  been. 

I  shall  only  add  the  remark  of  Wall,  that  the  first 
body  of  men  we  read  of,  that  denied  baptism  to  infants, 
were  the  Petrobrusians,  A.  D.  1150. 

Thus  it  appears  that  we  have  evidence  as  abundant, 
and  specific,  and  certain,  as  history  affords  of  almost  any 
other  fact,  that  Infant  Baptism  universally  prevailed  >om 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  13  > 

the  days  of  the  Apostles  through  four  centuries.  Bap- 
tists and  Pedobaptists  are  satisfied,  on  the  ground  of  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  that  the  churches  immediately  suc- 
ceeding the  Apostles,  observed  the  first  day  of  the  week 
as  a  sacred  day  ;  that  the  books,  of  which  our  TSqw  Tes- 
tament is  composed,  were  generally  acknowledged  as  of 
divine  authority  ;  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  frequently 
celebrated,  and  that  women  partook  of  it  as  well  as  men. 
But  which  of  these  facts  is  better  supported  by  historical 
evidence,  than  the  baptism  of  infants  ?* 

On  the  value  of  this  argument  from  early  Ecclesiasti- 
cal History,  I  shall  offer  a  few  remarks. 

It  cannot  with  any  good  reason  be  denied  or  doubted 
that  those  Christian  writers,  who  have,  in  different  ways, 
given  testimony  to  the  prevalence  of  Infant  Baptism  in 
the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  are  credible  witnesses. 
Nor  can  it  be  denied,  that  they  were  under  the  best  ad- 
vantages to  know,  whether  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism 
commenced  in  the  time  of  the  x^postles.  On  this  subject, 
as  they  were  not  liable  to  mistake,  so  their  testimony  is 
entitled  to  full  credit. 

infant  Baptism  was  a  subject,  in  which  early  Chris- 
tians must  have  felt  a  very  lively  interest.  It  was  a  thing 
of  the  most  public  nature,  and  a  mistake  concerning  it 
must  have  been  altogether  improbable, — I  might  say,  im- 
possible. It  was  certainly  impossible  that  Christians 
should  be  mistaken  as  to  the  question,  whether  Infant 
Baptism  was  generally  practised  in  their  own  age.  And 
it  must  have  been  almost  as  impossible  for  them  to  be 
mistaken,  as  to  the  practice  of  the  preceding  age.  For 
they  had  memories,  as  well  as  we ;  and  they  had  oral 
traditions  ;  and  they  had  written  records  also.     And  why 

*  See  Appendix  B. 
12* 


134 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


should  not  they  have  known  what  took  place  in  the  time 
of  their  fathers,  as  well  as  we  know  what  took  place  in 
the  time  of  our  fathers  ?  But  surely  we  have  no  doubt 
whether  wc  were  baptized  in  infancy  ;  or  whether  our 
parents  were  baptized  in  infancy  ;  or  whether  in  the  days 
of  our  fathers  it  was  the  uniform  practice  of  the  churches, 
with  which  we  are  connected,  to  give  baptism  to  chil- 
dren. Who  can  imagine  that  we  arc  in  any  danger  of 
mistake,  as  to  the  practice  of  the  first  churches  of  New 
England  relative  to  their  infant  offspring  1  If  any  one 
should  take  upon  him  to  deny  that  those  churches  bap- 
tized their  children  ;  should  we  not  think  him  extremely 
ignorant,  or  in  sport  ?  We  deem  it  sufficient,  that  our 
fathers  have  told  us  it  was  so,  and  that  we  never  heard 
any  one  question  it.  But  besides  this,  there  are  many 
circumstances  which  plainly  imply  it ;  and  we  have  books, 
written  at  the  time,  which  contain  indubitable  evidence 
of  the  fact.  And  we  say  too,  that  the  very  existence  of 
the  practice  at  the  present  time,  considering  how  public 
and  how  important  a  thing  it  is,  must  be  regarded  as  con- 
clusive evidence  that  it  was  the  practice  before  ;  unless 
it  can  be  made  to  appear,  that  a  change  has  taken  place, 
and  that  our  churches  have  been  induced  to  renounce 
their  former  views,  and  to  become  Pedobaptirns.  If  such 
a  change  has  taken  place,  let  it  be  made  to  appear.  Let 
those  Avho  assert  such  a  change,  produce  the  evidence  of 
it.  If  no  evidence  of  this  can  be  produced,  it  is  just  to 
conclude,  that  no  change  has  taken  place,  and  that  the 
present  practice  is  only  a  continuation  of  that  which  for- 
merly prevailed. 

These  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  subject  under 
consideration.  My  position  is,  that  the  Fathers,  from 
whom  I  have  made  citations  relative  to  the  practice  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  135 

lnfcmt  Baptism,  are  credible  witnesses  ;  that  they  were 
under  the  best  advantages  to  know  whether  the  practice 
had  prevailed  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  accord- 
ingly, that  their  testimony  on  the  subject  is  entitled  to  en- 
tire confidence.  In  different  circumstances,  and  in  dif- 
ferent countries,  they  stand  forth  as  witnesses,  that  In- 
fant Baptism  had  been  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  from  the  beginning.  Although  they  lived  at 
different  periods,  they  were  all  near  enough  to  the  time 
of  the  Apostles  to  obtain  correct  information  respecting 
a  practice  like  this.  In  their  own  time  the  practice  was 
universal.  They  tell  us  it  had  been  so  from  the  begin- 
ning. Some  of  them  would  have  been  quite  ready  to 
deny  this,  if  they  could  have  found  any  reasons  for  do- 
ing so.  But  they  unite  in  declaring,  that  the  practice 
had  been  universal  in  the  Christian  church  from  the  time 
of  the  apostles. 

Should  any  one  say,  there  might  have  been  a  change, 
and  the  baptism  of  infants  might  have  been  introduced 
afterward,  either  gradually  or  suddenly ;  I  would  ask, 
where  is  the  evidence  of  this  ?  Even  if  all,  who  lived  at 
the  time,  had  been  united  in  such  a  change,  it  could  not 
have  taken  place  without  leaving  some  clear  proof  of  the 
fact ;  some  traces,  which  would  have  been  visible  to  those 
who  succeeded.  But  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  impro- 
bable, that  all  who  lived  at  the  time  of  such  a  change, 
would  be  united  in  it.  And  if  they  were  not  united,  there 
must  be  some  evidence  of  the  disunion  ;  some  traces  of 
the  controversy  of  disagreeing  parties  ;  some  account  of 
the  remonstrances  of  the  more  conscientious  and  faithful 
against  those  who  were  unstable,  and  who  wished  to 
make  unwarrantable  changes,  and  of  the  arguments  of 
such  innovators  to  justify  themselves  against  the   charge 


136  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

of  corrupting  the  simplicity  of  a  Christian  institution. 
But  where  is  the  evidence  of  the  change  supposed  1 
Where  do  we  find  any  traces  of  it  ?  What  declaration, 
or  suggestion,  or  allusion  is  there,  in  any  written  history, 
or  in  any  tradition,  making  it  certain,  or  in  any  degree 
probable,  that  such  a  change  ever  took  place  ?  Who  ev- 
er heard  of  the  contention  of  parties  on  this  subject;  of 
the  remonstrances  of  the  faithful,  or  the  apologies  of  in- 
novators? Now  if  the  early  Christians  had  among  them 
any  of  the  vigilance  and  zeal  of  those  who,  in  modern 
times,  have  denied  Infant  Baptism  ;  how  could  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  have  been  introduced  without  exciting  dis- 
satisfaction, complaint  and  opposition  ?  Take  the  Bap- 
tist churches  now  existing,  and  distinguished  for  their 
piety  and  zeal,  in  Great  Britain,  in  America  or  in  India. 
Should  any  of  these  churches  attempt  to  introduce  Infant 
Baptism,  would  not  a  loud  voice  be  quickly  raised 
against  them  ?  Would  they  not  be  obliged  to  encounter 
arguments  too  many,  and  opposition  too  decided,  to  be 
either  despised,  or  forgotten  ?  Now  turn  to  the  primitive 
churches.  If  they  did  not  consider  Infant  Baptism  a  di- 
vine institution,  why  did  they  not  lift  up  their  voice  and  ar- 
ray their  arguments  against  it,  when  it  was  first  brought  in- 
to use?  We  have  very  ancient  and  particular  accounts  of 
controversies  and  heresies  on  a  great  variety  of  subjects, 
both  doctrinal  and  practical.  How  happens  it,  that  we 
have  no  account  of  lite  heresy  of  the  Pedobaptists,  and  no 
account  of  any  controversy  with  them  ?  If  we  may  judge 
from  what  has  appeared  in  modern  times,  we  should 
think  that  there  are  few  subjects  more  likely  to  excite  at- 
tention, than  this,  and  few  subjects  on  which  the  disa- 
greements of  Christians  would  be  more  likely  to  be  at- 
tended with  warmth,  or  more  likely  to  be  remembered. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  137 

These  remarks  are  sufficient  to  shew  the  value  of  the 
argument  from  Ecclesiastical  History.  The  testimony 
of  the  early  Christian  writers  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism, 
as  the  uniform  practice  of  the  church,  is  worthy  of  full 
credit,  and,  as  the  circumstances  were,  affords  a  conclu- 
sive argument  that  it  was  a  divine  institution.  And  I 
well  know,  that  an  argument  like  this  on  the  opposite 
side,  would  be  quite  as  much  relied  upon  by  those  who 
deny  Infant  Baptism,  as  this  is  relied  upon  by  us.  If 
they  could  but  make  it  appear  by  citations  from  Ecclesi- 
astical Histories,  that  the  churches,  immediately  after  the 
time  of  the  Apostles,  were  united  in  rejecting  Infant  Bap- 
tism, and  that  this  continued  to  be  the  case  for  more  than 
a  thousand  years,  without  the  exception  of  a  single  church 
or  individual  Christian  who  pleaded  for  the  practice  ; 
would  they  not  earnestly  seize  this  fact,  and  confidently 
rely  upon  it,  as  an  unanswerable  argument  against  In- 
fant Baptism  ?  I  would  seriously  propose  this  view  of  the 
subject  to  the  serious  and  impartial  consideration  of  those 
who  differ  from  us  on  the  question  at  issue.  Let  them 
remember  how  much  writers  on  their  side  have  labored 
to  show,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  the  universal  prac- 
tice of  the  early  Christian  churches  ;  and  how  much 
stress  they  have  laid  on  the  least  shadow  of  evidence,  that 
primitive  Christians,  in  any  instances,  did  not  baptize 
their  children.  Now  if  they  could  produce  clear  evi- 
dence that  there  were  many  such  instances ;  especially, 
if  they  could  make  it  appear,  that  Christians  in  general 
were  not  accustomed  to  baptize  children  ;  if  they  could 
produce  one  plain  declaration,  or  even  the  slightest  hint, 
from  Origen,  from  Augustine,  or  from  Pelagius,  showing 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  practised  by  the  first  Chris- 
tian churches,  and  that  no  order  or  tradition  in  favor   of 


138  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

it  was  ever  received  from  the  Apostles, — or  even  expres- 
sing a  doubt  on  the  subject;  would  they  not  hold  this  to 
be  an  unquestionable  proof  against  Infant  Buptism  ?  And 
would  not  their  confidence  in  such  a  conclusion  rise  to 
the  highest  pitch,  if  they  could  make  it  appear  that, 
when  Infant  Baptism  was  first  introduced,  earnest  and 
repeated  remonstrances  were  made  against  it,  as  a  dan- 
gerous innovation  ?  But  as  the  proof  from  Ecclesiastical 
History  is  wholly  on  the  other  side,  and  shows  clearly, 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  the  uniform  practice  of  the 
church  in  the  ages  succeeding  the  Apostles ;  and  as  no 
want  of  genuineness  in  the  works  referred  to,  and  no 
want  of  clearness  or  fulness  in  the  testimonies  which  they 
contain  can  be  pretended  ;  with  what  candor  or  fair- 
ness can  my  Baptist  brethren  deny  the  force  of  this  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  ? 

If  there  should  be  any  remaining  doubt  in  your  minds, 
as  to  the  propriety  of  relying  on  the  testimony  of  unin- 
spired men  on  such  a  subject  as  this,  and  if  you  should 
think,  that  nothing  but  an  express  declaration  from  the 
word  of  God  ought  to  satisfy  us;  I  would  turn  your  at- 
tention for  a  few  moments  to  the  consequences  of  adher- 
ing to  this  principle.  In  the  first  place,  what  evidence 
have  you,  except  the  testimony  of  uninspired  men,  that 
the  several  books  which  constitute  the  Old  Testament,  as 
we  now  have  it,  are  the  very  books  to  which  Christ  and 
the  apostles  referred  as  the  word  of  God  ?  Neither  of 
them  has  given  us  any  specific  instruction  on  this  point ; 
and  we  go  to  Josephus,  who  was  neither  an  inspired 
man,  nor  a  Christian  ;  to  the  Talmud,  and  to  Jerome, 
Origen,  Aquila,  and  other  uninspired  men,  to  find  a  list 
of  the  books,  which  we  are  to  receive  as  given  by  inspir- 
ation of  God;  and  having  proved   from  their  testimony. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  139 

that  these  were  the  hooks  which  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
regarded  as  sacred  writings,  we  prove  in  other  ways,  that 
those  writings  have  come  down  to  us  without  any  mate- 
rial alteration.  And  we  must  use  the  same  kind  of  rea- 
soning in  regard  to  the  New  Testament.  We  have  no 
voice  from  heaven,  and  no  express  testimony  of  any  in- 
spired writer,  that  the  several  books,  which  compose  the 
entire  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  were  given  by  in- 
spiration of  God,  or  that  they  were  all  written  by  Apos- 
tles, or  even  by  Christians.  But  we  go  to  Eusebius,  and 
to  other  uninspired  writers,  and  we  find,  that  they  regard- 
ed these  books,  as  the  genuine  productions  of  those  to 
whom  they  are  commonly  ascribed,  and  as  having  divine 
authority.  It  is  on  such  evidence  as  this,  that  we  rely 
for  the  support  of  those  sacred  books,  which  are  the  basis 
of  our  faith,  and  which  teach  us  what  are  the  doctrines 
and  precepts  and  rites  of  our  religion.  And  why  should 
we  not  rely  on  their  testimony,  in  regard  to  the  manner 
in  which  a  religious  rite  was  understood  and  applied  by 
the  churches,  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity?  Why 
should  we  not  confide  in  them  as  credible  witnesses  of  a 
fact,  which  they  had  the  best  opportunity  to  be  acquaint- 
ed with,  and  no  temptation  to  misrepresent  I* 


*  I  am  reluctant  to  say  what  truth  and  justice  seem  to  require 
me  to  say,  respecting  the  manner  in  which  several  Baptist  writers 
have  treated  the  historical  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 
I  make  the  appeal  to  men  of  any  denomination,  who  have  the  re- 
quisite qualifications,  and  can  find  opportunity  to  give  the  subject 
an  impartial  and  thorough  examination,  whether  an  instance  can 
easily  be  found,  of  greater  unfairness  in  reasoning,  or  of  a  more 
determined  effort  to  d;scolor  all  facts,  and  evade  all  arguments  on 
the  opposite  side,  than  is  exhibited  in  the  writers  referred  to. 

But  I  would  be  far  from  indulging  the  thought,  that  I  am  not 
exposed  to  the  same  faults  as  those  upon  which  I  animadvert  in 
others.  I  would  therefore  propose  to  those  who  differ  from  me, 
that,  in  the  midst  of  our  investigations,  we  should  now  and  then 
make  a  solemn  pause,  and  humbly  and  earnestly  pray,  that  oik 


140  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

hearts  may  be  right  with  God.  Whether  we  are  engaged  in  con- 
futing error,  or  in  defending  the  truth,  it  is  our  bounden  duty  to 
use  the  faculties  which  God  has  given  us,  with  Christian  candor. 
and  with  the  most  exact  integrity  and  impartiality.  Any  devia- 
tion from  these  in  our  inquiries  after  truth,  or  in  the  manner  of 
conducting  controversy,  must  be  as  offensive  to  God,  to  say  the 
least,  as  unfairness,  dishonesty,  or  artful  evasion,  in  the  common 
transactions  of  life.  The  God  of  truth  neither  requires  nor  per- 
mits us  to  use  carnal  weapons  in  defence  of  his  cause.  Nay,  I 
am  persuaded,  that  Gfd  would  rather  see  us  contend  for  error 
with  a  right  spirit,  than  for  truth,  with  a  wrong. 

In  reference  to  one  of  the  writers  to  whom  I  have  alluded, 
namely,  R.  Robinson,  whose  History  of  Baptism  is  often  referred 
to  as  good  authority  by  the  Baptists  in  America, — being  unwilling 
to  trust  my  own  judgement  merely,  I  have  requested  my  respected 
Colleague,  the  Rev.  Moses  Stuart,  to  favor  me  with  his  views.  In 
compliance  with  my  request  he  has  sent  me  the  following  letter, 
with  liberty  to  insert  it  in  a  note. 

My  dear  Brother, 

I  thank  you  for  the  loan  of  R.  Robinson's  History  of  Bap- 
tism. Having  so  often  heard  the  book  spoken  highly  of,  and  know- 
ing something  of  Mr.  Robinson's  talents  and  character,  I  had  a 
great  curiosity  to  see  it.  I  have  examined  it  on  various  topics,  and 
confess  myself  to  be  greatly  disappointed,  and  not  a  little  disgust- 
ed. There  is  every  where  in  it,  an  air  of  almost  profane  levity  ; 
which  at  times  breaks  out  into  the  most  gross  and  paipable  inde- 
cency. See  for  specimens,  pp.  3(37  and  409  and  410  of  the  Ameri- 
can edition,  to  which  a  multitude  of  examples  might  easily  be  ad- 
ded. There  is  every  where  such  an  effort  to  appear  smart,  and  to 
say  witty  things,  and  to  hold  up  his  opponents  to  ridicule,  if  not  to 
contempt,  that  a  serious  and  candid  inquirer  is  ready  to  ask, — How 
is  it  possible,  that  serious  and  sensible  men  of  the  Baptist  com- 
munity could  have  ever  recommended  such  a  book  as  this  to  the 
public  ?  Withal,  there  is  such  a  gross  and  palpable  unfairness  in 
Robinson's  examination  of  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  Fathers, 
and  such  shallow  criticism  both  on  them  and  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  one  may  well  wonder,  that  his  book  should  meet  with 
encouragement  among  men  of  sobriety  and  good  sense.  There  is 
indeed,  an  appearance  of  a  kind  of  learning  in  the  author;  but  it  is 
merely  that  of  a  literary  gourmand,  who  has  read  every  thing  cu- 
rious and  entertaining,  and  but  very  little  that  is  solid,  and  has  rea- 
soned and  reflected  still  less  on  what  he  has  read.  How  very  dif- 
ferent from  this  book,  that  of  Dr  Gale  is,  every  critical  reader 
must  at  once  perceive.  I  only  regret,  the  spirit  and  temper  exhib- 
ited by  Dr  Gale  ;  and  candour  obliges  me  to  say.  by  Dr  Wall  al- 
so, in  his  Defence.  But  it  was  the  fault  of  the  day  ;  from  which 
may  heaven  defend  the  present  generation,  and  all  ages  to  come. 

Yours  sincerely, 

M.  Stuart 
29  June, 1829. 


LECTURE   VII. 


Baptism  a  substitute  for  circumcision. — Circumcision  not  applied  to  females; 
— applied  to  servants. — Seal  of  the  covenant. — Difficulty  arising  from  the  dif- 
ference between  the  former  and  the  present  economy,  and  from  the  requisition 
of  faith. —  Import  of  Infant  Baptism. — Utility. — Standing  of  baptized  children. 
— Duties  of  parents  and  the  church. 

I  have  now  exhibited,  as  far  as  my  present  object  re- 
quires, the  arguments  which  I  regard  as  most  weighty 
and  conclusive  in  favor  of  the  position,  that  the  Apostles 
understood  their  commission  to  proselyte  and  baptize,  as 
including  children.  There  are,  however,  several  remain- 
ing topics,  more  or  less  related  to  the  subject,  which  must 
be  carefully  considered.  And  when  thus  considered, 
they  will  afford  important  collateral  evidence  in  support 
of  Infant  Baptism,  and  will  have  a  very  satisfactory  influ- 
ence upon  the  minds  of  candid  inquirers  after  the  truth. 

The  first  of  these  remaining  topics  is,  Baptism  con- 
sidered as  a  substitute  for  circumcision. 

It  is  common  to  speak  of  one  thing  as  coming  in  the 
place  of  another,  when  there  is  a  general  agreement  be- 
tween them,  as  to  the  object  sought,  or  the  end  to  be 
answered,  how  different  soever  they  may  be  in  other  res- 
pects. Thus  our  meeting-houses,  or  churches,  are  some- 
times spoken  of  as  coming  in  the  place  of  the  Jewish 
temple  and  synagogues,  because  they  agree  in  this, 
that  they  are  designed  for  public  worship,  and  public  re- 
13 


142  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ligious  instruction.  As  to  the  form  of  the  buildings,  and 
the  particular  mode  of  worship  and  instruction,  they  dif- 
fer greatly.  So  also  in  regard  to  the  general  end  sought, 
we  consider  ministers  of  the  gospel  as  substituted  for  the 
Levitical  Priesthood  ;  the  more  spiritual  services  of  Chris- 
tians, for  the  daily  sacrifices  of  the  Jews  ;  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  for  the  Passover.  In  each  of  these  cases,  there  is 
an  obvious  agreement,  in  regard  to  the  general  object 
in  view,  between  the  former  institution,  and  that  which 
comes  in  its  stead.  So  in  civil  matters.  A  law  former- 
ly existed,  requiring  a  thief  to  be  punished  by  scourging; 
but  that  law  has  been  set  aside,  and  another  enacted,  re- 
quiring a  thief  to  labor  in  prison,  with  solitary  confine- 
ment at  night.  This  law,  or  this  mode  of  punishment,  we 
speak  of  as  a  substitute  for  the  other,  because  it  relates  to 
the  same  subject,  and  is  intended  to  answer  the  same 
general  purpose.  In  the  same  manner,  we  speak  of  the 
punishment  of  death,  as  commuted  for  exile,  or  of  exile, 
as  substituted  for  death. 

From  these  and  other  like  examples,  we  learn  how 
such  language  is  commonly  used.  And  it  must  be  con- 
sidered proper  to  use  it  in  the  same  sense,  in  relation  to 
the  subject  before  us.  The  position  which  has  been 
maintained  by  the  ablest  writers,  and  which  I  shall  en- 
deavour to  defend,  is,  that  Baptism  comes  in  the  place  of 
circumcision.  This  position  is  not  founded  so  much  on 
any  particular  text,  as  on  the  general  representations  of 
Scripture,  and  the  nature  of  the  case.  When  God  adopt- 
ed Abraham  and  his  posterity  to  be  his  peculiar  people, 
lie  commanded  them  to  be  circumcised  ;  and  it  appears 
from  the  representations  of  Moses  and  Paul,  that  those 
who  received  this  rite,  were  under  special  obligations  to 
be  holy.     Circumcision  was,  then,  a  sign  put  upon  Abra- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  143 

ham  and  his  seed,  showing  them  to  be  a  peculiar  people, 
under  peculiar  obligations  to  God,  and  entitled  to  pecu- 
liar blessings.  Just  so  Baptism  is  a  sign,  put  upon  the 
people  of  God  under  the  new  dispensation,  signifying 
substantially  the  same  obligations  and  blessings,  as  those 
which  were  signified  by  circumcision  ; — the  same,  I  say, 
substantially,  though  in  some  circumstances  different. 
If  then  circumcision  was  a  rite,  by  which  persons  were 
admitted  into  the  society  of  God's  people,  and  set  apart 
for  his  service,  under  the  former  dispensation  ;  and  if 
circumcision  is  set  aside,  and  Baptism  is  the  appointed 
rite,  by  which  persons  are  admitted  into  the  society  of 
God's  people  and  consecrated  to  his  service,  under  the 
new  dispensation  ;  it  is  evident  that  Baptism  has  succeed- 
ed in  the  place  of  circumcision.  We  cannot  but  be  sat- 
isfied with  this  conclusion,  if  the  sign  of  one  of  these 
rites  was,  in  all  important  respects,  the  same  as  of  the  oth- 
er; and  particularly,  if  they  were  both  appointed,  as  a 
seal  of  the  same  general  promise  of  God  to  his  people,  and 
of  the  same  general  relation  of  his  people  to  him. 

Now  if  Baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circumcision, 
and  is,  in  the  most  important  respects,  designed  for  the 
same  purpose ;  we  should  think  there  must  be  some  sim- 
ilarity between  them  in  regard  to  their  application.  Un- 
der the  former  dispensation,  if  any,  who  had  been  aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  were  made  proselytes 
to  the  Jewish  religion,  they  were  circumcised.  Accord- 
ingly, if,  under  the  present  dispensation,  any  who  have 
been  enemies  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  are  converted, 
and  made  disciples  of  Christ,  they  are  to  be  baptized. 
This  conclusion,  which  we  should  naturally  adopt  from 
the  circumstance  that  Baptism  was  substituted  in  the 
place  of  circumcision,  perfectly  agrees  with  the  particu- 


144  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

lar  instruction  given  in  the  New  Testament.  The  com- 
mand as  to  baptism  related  primarily  to  those,  who  be- 
came proselytes  to  Christ,  whether  they  were  Jews  or 
Gentiles.  It  related  to  believers.  These  were  to  be  bap- 
tized, just  as  adult  proselytes  to  Judaism  had  before  been 
circumcised.  And  what  is  the  natural  conclusion  re- 
specting the  children  of  believers  ?  Plainly  this  ;  that  as 
the  children  of  Abraham,  the  father  of  believers,  and  the 
children  of  all  proselytes  to  the  true  religion,  were  for- 
merly circumcised  ;  so  the  children  of  all  believers  are 
now  to  be  baptized.  This  must  be  our  conclusion,  unless 
the  word  of  God  expressly  forbids  Infant  Baptism,  or  un- 
less there  is  something  in  the  nature  and  design  of  Bap- 
tism, which  makes  it  manifestly  unsuitable  to  apply  it  to 
infant  children. 

The  fact  that  circumcision  was  applied  only  to  men, 
is  of  no  consequence  as  to  the  argument ;  because  wo- 
men in  that  case,  as  in  many  others,  were  evidently  con- 
sidered as  represented  by  men,  and  virtually  included 
with  them.  Consequently,  the  meaning  of  infant  cir- 
cumcision must  have  been  the  same,  as  though  it  had 
been  applied  to  persons  of  both  sexes.  But  the  distinc- 
tion, formerly  made  between  male  and  female,  in  regard 
to  the  application  of  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  is  done  away 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  seal  is  now  to  be 
applied  to  believers  of  both  sexes ;  and  of  course  to  all 
their  children,  whether  sons  or  daughters. 

The  chief  objection  to  this  view  of  the  subject  arises 
from  the  fact,  that  Abraham's  servants  were  all  circum- 
cised, whereas  there  is  nothing  like  this  in  regard  to  the 
application  of  Christian  baptism. 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  I  remark  first ;  that  the 
great  promise  of  the  covenant  expressly  related  to  parents 


tUFANT  BAPTISM;  145 

and  children.  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed." 
This  was  the  natural,  primary  relation.  The  relation 
of  servants  to  their  master  was  not  natural,  but  accidental, 
and  altogether  subordinate  and  inferior.  So  that  it 
would  be  nothing  strange,  if  under  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation, less  respect  should  be  shown  to  this  relation,  than 
to  the  relation  of  children  to  parents.  It  was  so  even  un- 
der the  former  dispensation.  The  circumcision  of  chil- 
dren was  the  prominent  thing.  This  was  to  be  observed 
in  all  generations,  so  long  as  that  economy  continued. 
Whether  there  was  any  occasion  to  circumcise  servants, 
or  not,  the  circumcision  of  children  was  never  to  fail. 
Now  it  would  seem  perfectly  reasonable  to  suppose,  that 
in  respect  to  this  natural  primary  relation,  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  under  the  new  dispensation  should  be  applied 
in  the  same  manner  as  under  the  old,  though  it  might 
not  be  in  respect  to  the  other  relation,  which  is  acciden- 
tal and  inferior.  But  I  remark,  secondly,  that  I  do  not 
consider  baptism  as  by  any  means  intended  to  be  con- 
fined to  parents  and  children.  If  a  Christian  takes  the 
children  of  his  children,  or  the  children  of  any  relative 
into  a  near  relation  to  himself,  and  engages  to  be  as  a 
father  to  them  ;  it  is,  in  my  view,  perfectly  suitable  that 
he  should  consecrate  them  to  God  by  baptism.  And  I 
think  the  same  also  in  regard  to  orphans,  or  any  other 
children,  whom  a  Christian  guardian  or  master  receives 
into  his  family,  and  undertakes,  as  sponsor,  to  bring  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  So  that  as 
the  parallel  between  circumcision  and  baptism  need  not 
be  supposed  entirely  to  fail,  even  in  regard  to  those  who 
stand  in  other  relations  besides  that  of  children  ;  the  ob- 
jection we  are  considering  seems,  after  all,  to  have  but 
little  force. 

13* 


146 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


The  connexion  above  mentioned,  between  Infant  Bap- 
tism and  Infant  circumcision,  I  once  thought  doubtful. 
But  the  fact,  that  it  is  relied  upon  by  all  the  ablest  and 
most  candid  defenders  of  Infant  Baptism,  induced  me 
carefully  to  reexamine  it.  This  reexamination  has 
brought  me  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  appointment  and 
uniform  practice  of  Infant  circumcision,  in  connexion 
with  the  reasons  on  which  it  rested,  and  the  circum- 
stances attending  it,  would  naturally  lead  the  Apostles, 
and  must  lead  us,  to  understand  the  rite  of  Baptism,  as 
coming  generally  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  as 
meant  to  be  applied  to  infant  children.  The  reasoning 
which  appertains  to  this  subject  will  be  brought  into  view 
more  fully  in  another  place.  I  might  make  citations 
from  a  multitude  of  the  most  respectable  authors,  con- 
taining statements  of  this  argument  in  different  forms. 
But  I  shall  content  myself  with  referring  to  Calvin's  In- 
stitutes, Book  4.  ch.  16.  Dwight's  Discourses  on  Infant 
Baptism;  Storr's  Bib.  Theol.  Book  4.  §  112.  together 
with  111.  4th  of  the  same  Section ;  and  Knapp's  Theolo- 
gy  ;  §  142,  2. 

Second.  Seal  of  the  covenant. 

If  we  would  ever  arrive  at  clear  and  satisfactory  views 
on  this  subject  we  must  dismiss  all  indistinct  and  obscure 
conceptions,  and  learn  directly  from  the  Scriptures,  in 
what   sense  the  word  covenant  is  there  used. 

The  Greek  diafiri'Ay,  like  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
D^ns  ,  signifies,  in  general,  any  arrangement,  constitu- 
tion, establishment,  cronomy,  or  plan  of  proceeding. 
Schleusner  says,  notat  dispositionem,  qualiscunque  ea  sit ; 
and  generally,  omne,  quod  cum  summa  ccrtitudinc  et  fide 
factum  est.     The  use  of  the  word  in  the  Septuagint  he 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  147 

represents  to  be  the  same  :  Omne,  quod  cerium  et  consti- 
tutiun  est :  whatever  is  appointed  and  made  sure ;  an  es- 
tablished constitution,  or  plan.  It  is  from  this  general 
sense,  that  all  the  particular  senses  are  evidently  derived. 
Thus  diaftrjxi],  appointment,  plan,  establishment,  is  some- 
times a  Will,  or  Testament ;  sometimes  a  promise  ;  some- 
times a  precept ;  sometimes  a  compact ;  and  sometimes 
an  economy,  or  method  of  acting.  The  word  signifies  one 
or  another  of  these,  just  as  circumstances  require.  Thus 
in  Heb.  9:  16,  17,  dia&qxr)  must  evidently  mean  a  Tes- 
tament, or  Will,  as  the  passage  could  have  no  consistent 
meaning  without  giving  this  sense  to  the  word.  The 
writer  says,  a  Testament,  dia&tixr],  is  of  force  after  men 
are  dead,  and  is  of  no  force,  while  the  testator  liv- 
eth.  Here  the  word  signifies,  the  arrangement,  or  dis- 
position, which  a  man  directs  to  be  made  of  his  affairs 
after  his  decease.  In  Luke  1:  72,  the  word  denotes  the 
divine  promise.  Zacharias  celebrates  the  faithfulness  of 
God  in  "  remembering  his  holy  covenant,  the  oath  that 
he  sware  to  Abraham,"  referring  to  the  promise  of  a  Sa- 
viour. Here  dia&rtxii  signifies  that  divine  arrangement, 
plan,  or  appointment  respecting  a  Saviour,  which  was 
made  known  in  the  way  of  a  promise  to  Abraham.  In 
Gen.  9:  9 — 18,  God  speaks  of  making  a  covenant  with 
man,  and  with  the  whole  animal  creation,  and  with  the 
earth  too,  and  represents  this  covenant,  as  between  him 
and  them.  Many  persons  understand  such  a  phrase  to 
denote  a  proper  agreement,  or  contract,  in  which  two  par- 
ties unite,  and  in  the  execution  of  which  both  parties 
have  an  agency.  But  this  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  in  the  present  case  ;  for  the  irrational  part  of  the 
creation  were  incapable  of  having  any  agency  either  in 
forming  or  executing   such  an  agreement.     The  thing 


148  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

promised  was,  that  the  earth  should  not  again  be  destroy- 
ed by  a  deluge.  This  was  God's  covenant ;  and  it  was 
said  to  be  between  God  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth,  rational  and  irrational,  because  the  thing  which 
God  determined  and  promised,  related  to  them.  They 
were  all  to  be  preserved  from  being  destroyed  by  anoth- 
er deluge.  So  that  what  is  here  called  God's  covenant, 
was  in  reality,  his  determination  and  promise  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  he  would  treat  man,  and  beast,  and  the 
earth.  The  earth  and  its  inhabitants  were  in  no  sense 
a  party  to  this  divine  covenant  or  arrangement,  except 
as  they  were  to  be  benefited  by  it  ;  that  is,  were  to  be 
preserved  from  another  deluge.  This  establishment,  or 
declared  purpose  of  God,  had  a  seal.  "  God  said,  I  will 
set  my  bow  in  the  cloud,  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the 
covenant  betiveen  me  and  the  earth."  The  rainbow  was 
appointed  to  be  a  sign  of  the  truth  of  God's  promise  ;  a 
pledge  of  the  certain  execution  of  the  purpose  he  had  de- 
clared, that  he  would  not  again  destroy  the  earth  by  a 
flood. 

From  this  case  we  learn,  that  a  covenant  of  God  may 
have  respect  to  those,  who  are  incapable  of  having  any 
agency  either  in  agreeing  to  it,  or  in  carrying  it  into  ex- 
ecution. It  may  respect  the  animal  creation,  day  and 
night,  and  the  earth  itself.  And  if  so,  it  may  surely  have 
respect  to  infant  children.  And  this  is  no  more  than 
saying,  that  God  may  have  a  determination,  or  settled 
purpose,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  will  treat  infant 
children ;  and  that  he  may  make  known  such  a  deter- 
mination by  his  word.  To  such  a  determination,  or  set- 
tled plan  of  conduct,  the  Scriptures  give  the  name  of  cov- 
enant. 

In  some  passages,  diaOr^rj  signifies   a  command.     It 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  149 

certainly  has  this  sense  when  applied  to  the  decalogue  ; 
as  Heb.  9:  4.  It  has  this  sense,  Acts  7:  8  :  "  God  gave 
him  the  covenant  of  circumcision  ;"  that  is,  as  Schleusner 
understands  it,  gave  him  a  command  to  circumcise.  I 
apprehend,  however,  that  the  word  has  a  broader  mean- 
ing here,  and  denotes  the  whole  economy,  which  God  es- 
tablished in  regard  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  including 
precepts,  promises,  and  privileges ;  of  which  economy 
circumcision  was  the  sign.  And  if  so,  the  word  in  this 
place  has  nearly  the  same  sense  as  it  appears  to  have  in 
Gal.  4:  24,  where  the  phrase  two  covenants,  dvo  dia&ij- 
v.ai,  clearly  means,  the  Mosaic  and  the  Christian  economy. 
So  in  Heb.  9:  15,  the  first  covenant  doubtless  means  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  and  in  v.  20,  the  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant is  the  blood,  by  which  that  divine  economy  was  con- 
firmed. In  the  same  way  we  must  understand  the  words 
of  Christ  when  he  instituted  the  Supper:  "  This  cup  is 
the  New  Testament  in  my  blood."  This  cup  of  wine  re- 
presents my  blood,  by  which  the  ncio  dispensation,  or  the 
Christian  covenant  is  confirmed. 

There  is  hardly  any  passage  in  the  BiHe,  where  cov- 
enant directly  and  properly  means  a  compact,  or  agree- 
ment between  two  parties.  But  in  various  instances,  it 
may  imply  this,  or  something  like  this,  by  necessary  con- 
sequence. For  when  the  word  ()iu0  >]-/}],  signifying  a 
divine  appointment,  precept,  or  promise,  has  respect  to 
moral  agents,  there  must  be  an  obligation  on  their  part 
to  accede  to  such  appointment,  precept,  or  promise,  and 
to  act  according  to  it.  But  when  the  divine  covenant, 
that  is,  the  divine  appointment,  or  constitution,  has  re- 
spect to  things  not  possessed  of  moral  agency  ;  it  cannot 
imply,  that  they  are  under  any  obligation  to  conform  to 
it,  or  that  they  are  in   any  way  parties  in  the  covenant. 


150  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

except  merely  that  it  has  a  relation  to  them.  The  word 
covenant,  therefore,  considered  as  the  translation  of  diu- 
&rjK7],  and  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  D","»2,  no  more 
signifies  an  actual  agreement  between  two  parties,  than 
the  word  economy,  law,  or  appointment. 

We  see  then,  that  the  Scripture  sense  of  the  word 
dittQ}]xt}t  covenant,  is  materially  different  from  the  mean- 
ing of  covenant  in  common  discourse,  where  it  denotes 
a  mutual  agreement.  It  is  of  special  importance  to  note 
this,  because  the  supposition  that  the  word,  as  used  in 
the  Common  Version  of  the  Bible,  has  its  common  sig- 
nification, must  encumber  the  subject  before  us  with 
needless  difficulties.  For  if  dux&t'ixii,  covenant,  is  un- 
derstood to  mean  an  agreement  between  two  parties  in 
relation  to  the  interests  of  religion  ;  then  there  must  be 
two  parties  capable  of  such  agreement, — capable  of  en- 
gaging in  a  mutual  religious  transaction.  God  must  be 
one  of  the  parties  ;  and  the  other  must  be,  intelligent, 
moral  agents,  capable  of  acting  in  religious  concerns. 
Infant  children  must  of  course  be  excluded.  Whereas 
if  we  duly  consider  the  nature  of  a  covenant  in  the  Scrip- 
ture sense,  we  shall  see,  that  it  may  just  as  well  relate  to 
infant  children,  as  to  adults.  For  surely  God  may  have 
a  determination,  may  make  a  promise,  may  settle  an  ccon* 
omy,  ot  plan  of  proceeding,  in  regard  to  children,  as  well 
as  in  regard  to  men.  And  such  a  determination,  prom- 
ise, or  economy,  being  a  matter  of  great  consequence, 
may  with  the  utmost  propriety,  be  marked  by  a  religious 
rite.  And  a  religious  rite,  thus  introduced,  may  very 
justly  be  considered  a  seal,  or  confirmation  of  God's 
gracious  economy.  The  obvious  use  of  such  a  seal  is, 
to  keep  in  lively  remembrance  the  divine  determination 
and  promise ;  to  impress  the  minds  of  parents  with  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  151 

obligations  it  imposes  on  them  ;  and  in  due  time  to  be 
a  remembrancer  to  the  children  of  the  privileges,  which 
the  God  of  their  fathers  has  granted  them,  and  of  the 
gracious  economy,  under  which  they  are  placed ;  and  in 
this  way,  to  produce  in  their  minds  a  becoming  sense  of 
their  peculiar  obligations,  as  the  children  of  pious  par- 
ents. These  remarks  are  sufficient  to  show,  generally, 
the  suitableness  of  applying  the  appointed  seal  of  the  di- 
vine covenant  to  children,  as  well  as  to  parents.  Both 
parents  and  children  have  a  deep  interest  in  the  covenant, 
and  its  seal  has  an  obvious  and  important  significancy, 
whether  applied  to  the  former,  or  to  the  latter. 

The  Scriptures  teach  us,  that  God  made  a  covenant 
with  Abraham  and  his  seed  ;  that  is,  that  he  made  known 
what  was  his  purpose  respecting  them  ;  that  he  declared 
hoio  he  would  treat  them.  But  what  was  this  purpose  of 
God  ?  What  was  to  be  his  economy,  or  the  course  of 
his  administration,  towards  Abraham  and  his  seed  ? 
The  Scriptures  furnish  the  answer.  God  said  :  "  Thou 
shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations.  And  I  will  establish 
my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to 
be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I 
will  give  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee — all  the  land 
of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  possession  ;  and  I  will  be 
their  God."  Such  was  the  determination  which  God 
made  known  ;  the  economy  which  he  had  established. 
This  economy  involved  essential  conditions  on  the  part 
of  Abraham  and  his  seed.  And  these  conditions,  de- 
clared in  one  way  and  another,  were,  briefly,  that  they 
should  ivalk  before  God,  and  be  upright  and  obedient. 
But  the  circumstance,  that  a  divine  promise  or  plan  of  pro- 
ceeding is  conditional,  need  not  be  supposed  to  diminish 


15*2  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

its  importance,  nor  to  render  it  any  the  less  proper  that  it 
should  be  marked  by  a  religious  rite. 

Still  more  specific  views  of  the  nature  and  extent  of 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  may  be  de- 
rived from  other  declarations  of  Scripture,  and  from  that 
conduct  of  God's  providence,  which  is,  in  this  case,  and 
in  others,  the  best  interpreter  of  his  word.  I  shall  refer 
only  to  one  text.  Rom.  9:  4.  Here,  in  a  very  summa- 
ry way,  the  Apostle  mentions  the  peculiar  privileges  of 
the  Israelites,  and  says,  that  to  them  belonged  "  the 
adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God."  This  agrees 
with  the  representations,  elsewhere  made,  of  the  pecu- 
liar favors  which  God  bestowed  upon  that  people.  He 
adopted  them  as  his  children.  He  gave  them  a  holy 
law,  written  on  tables  of  stone,  and  a  great  variety  of 
other  precepts,  moral  and  ceremonial,  suited  to  their  con- 
dition. He  raised  up  prophets  to  teach  and  warn  them. 
He  displayed  his  glory  in  the  midst  of  them ;  made  great 
and  precious  promises  to  them,  and  from  time  to  time, 
wrought  wonders  of  power  and  mercy  in  their  behalf. 
Thus  the  children  of  Israel  were  a  highly  favored  people  ; 
and  the  place,  where  they  dwelt,  was  a  highly  favored 
place.  Those  who  were  born  there  from  generation  to 
generation,  were  born  in  propitious  circumstances.  They 
inherited  special  privileges.  It  was  the  pleasure  of  God, 
that  they  should  all  be  placed  under  the  operation  of  a 
gracious  economy  ;  should  be  taught  by  pious  parents, 
and  by  consecrated  men ;  should,  from  their  earliest 
years,  hear  what  God  had  done  for  their  fathers,  and  what 
a  holy  law  he  had  given  them  :  and  should  come  under 
those  divine  influences,  which,  if  cherished,  would  im- 
part to  the  various  privileges  they  enjoyed,  a  saving  eifica- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  153 

ey.  This  was  God's  establishment  respecting  Abraham 
and  his  seed.  This  was  his  chosen  method  of  transmit- 
ting the  true  religion  from  one  generation  to  another  ,  of 
continuing  a  church  in  the  world,  and  of  training  up  his 
people  for  heaven.  It  was  a  system  of  religious  educa- 
tion. The  children  of  God's  people  were  to  be  consider- 
ed from  their  birth,  as  consecrated  to  him  ;  and,  as  soon 
as  they  were  capable,  were  to  have  the  doctrines  and 
precepts  of  his  word  inculcated  upon  them,  accompanied 
with  the  pious  example  and  the  prayers  of  parents,  and 
all  encouraged  and  followed  by  the  promised  blessing  of 
God.  Children,  born  under  that  gracious  economy,  were 
thus,  by  their  very  birth,  brought  into  a  state  highly  au- 
spicious to  their  present  and  eternal  welfare.  The  token 
of  God's  covenant,  that  is,  circumcision,  was  a  token  of 
all  this  kindness  on  his  part,  and  of  all  these  privileges, 
prospects,  and  obligations  on  the  part  of  parents  and 
children. 

Now  the  divine  economy  under  the  reign  of  Christ 
is,  in  all  important  respects,  the  same  as  it  was  former- 
ly. Children  have  the  same  relation  to  their  pious  pa- 
rents, and  that  relation  is  of  equal  importance  in  the 
concerns  of  religion.  It  is  as  much  the  constitution  of 
God,  as  it  was  formerly,  that  religion  shall  be  preserved 
in  the  world,  and  transmitted  from  one  generation  to 
another,  through  the  influence  of  a  pious  education. 
The  children  of  Christian  parents  are  born  into  a  state 
as  favorable,  at  least,  as  the  children  of  Israelitish  par- 
ents were :  I  might  say,  much  more  favorable.  It  is 
as  much  the  will  of  God,  as  it  was  formerly,  that  they 
should  be  piously  consecrated  to  him,  and  that  they 
should  enjoy  a  religious  education,  including  all  the 
proper  forms  of  instruction  and  discipline,  and  all  the  ae- 
14 


154  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

companying  influence  of  a  good  example,  and  of  prayer. 
And  it  is  as  much  the  appointment  of  God  now,  as  it 
ever  was,  that  his  blessing  shall  attend  this  mode  of  ed- 
ucating children,  and  that  in  this  way  generally,  persons 
shall  be  brought  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  This  is 
the  plan  of  the  divine  conduct  now,  as  much  as  it  ever 
was.  So  that  in  regard  to  the  great  interests  of  man,  the 
children  of  believers  are  now  brought,  by  their  birth,  in- 
to a  state  similar  to  that  of  the  children  of  God's  people 
in  former  times.  The  only  important  difference  is,  that 
God's  establishment,  diax^rjut],  is  more  merciful  now, — 
is  fraught  with  higher  blessings,  than  formerly.  So  that 
there  are  all  the  reasons,  which  formerly  existed,  and 
some  in  addition,  for  applying  to  the  children  of  pious  pa- 
rents a  religious  rite,  which  is  the  appointed  token  of 
that  gracious  economy,  under  which  they  are  placed. 

Thus,  when  we  consider  what  God's  covenant  or 
plan  of  conduct  respecting  children  was  formerly,  and 
what  it  is  under  the  reign  of  Christ;  we  cannot  but 
conclude  that  it  is  as  reasonable  and  proper  to  apply  to 
them  the  present  seal  of  the  covenant,  as  it  was  the  for- 
mer. And  this  view  of  the  subject  is,  at  least,  sufficient 
to  expose  the  futility  of  any  conceivable  presumption 
against  Infant  Baptism,  and  to  show  that  the  presumptive 
arguments  are  decidedly  in  its  favor. 

The  common  difficulty  which  meets  us  in  regard  to 
this  reasoning,  is,  that  the  transition  from  the  former 
economy  to  the  latter  implied  a  great  change  ;  and  that, 
as  the  Christian  economy  is  so  loidcly  different  from  that 
ivhich  preceded,  we  cannot  reason  from  the  one  to  the  oth- 
er. 

I  readily  admit,  that  a  very  great  change  took  place, 
when  the  people  of  God  passed  from  the  Mosaic  to  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  155 

Christian  economy ; — a  change  from  obscurity  to  noon- 
day light ;  from  a  state,  in  which  the  Saviour  was  set 
forth  in  promises  and  symbols,  to  a  state,  in  which  he 
was  presented  in  all  his  glory,  as  actually  come,  and  ful- 
ly invested  with  the  office  of  the  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King  of  the  church  ; — a  change  too  respecting  the  place 
and  mode  of  worship,  the  power  of  the  motives  which 
enforce  the  obligations  of  religion,  and  the  extent  to 
which  the  blessings  of  salvation  were  to  be  diffused.  But 
whatever  was  the  nature  of  the  change,  and  to  whatev- 
er objects  it  related ;  it  certainly  did  not  imply  any 
diminution  of  privileges  to  children,  and,  of  course,  it 
could  have  no  influence  to  prevent  the  application  to  them 
of  the  seal  of  the  new  economy.  So  far  as  the  change 
which  took  place  affected  any  particular  subject,  we  can- 
not indeed  infer  what  is  proper  respecting  that  subject 
since  the  change  took  place,  from  what  was  proper  be- 
fore. The  change,  for  example,  affected  the  subject  of 
sacrifices,  and  the  line  of  separation  between  Jews  and 
Gentiles.  Accordingly,  it  would  be  absurd  for  us  to  ar- 
gue, that,  whereas  sacrifices  were  offered,  and  a  separa- 
tion between  Jews  and  Gentiles  was  made  under  the  former 
economy,  the  same  must  be  continued  now.  But  in  ma- 
ny respects,  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  reason  from  one 
economy  to  the  other.  Christ,  and  the  Apostles  did  rea- 
son from  one  to  the  other  ;  and  it  would  be  easy  to  pro- 
duce various  instances  in  which  this  must  be  acknowl- 
edged by  all  to  be  perfectly  proper.  If,  for  example,  it 
was  the  duty  of  men  under  the  former  dispensation,  to 
worship  God,  and  if  the  worship  required  comprehended 
confession,  thanksgiving  and  supplication  ;  and  if  it  was 
their  duty  to  love  their  neighbours  as  themselves ;  the 
game  must  be  the  case  now.     But  why  ?     Because  the 


156  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

change  which  took  place  had  no  respect  to  these  sub- 
jects. These  duties  rested  on  principles  common  to  both 
dispensations.  Just  so  it  is  with  the  duty  of  consecrating 
children  to  God  by  a  religious  rite.  This  duty  rests  on 
the  natural  and  immutable  relation  between  parents  and 
children,  and  on  the  general  purpose  and  promise  of 
God  to  propagate  religion  and  perpetuate  the  church,  by 
sanctifying  the  seed  of  believers.  This  was  the  divine 
economy  formerly ;  and  it  is  so  now.  It  has  as  much 
influence  now,  as  it  formerly  had.  Its  importance  is 
above  all  conception,  involving  as  it  does,  the  religious 
character  and  the  eternal  destinies  of  men.  Now  the 
same  token  of  this  gracious  economy,  and  of  consecra- 
tion to  God,  was  formerly  applied  to  parents  and  to  chil- 
dren, and  was  thus  applied  for  reasons,  which  are  com- 
mon to  all  ages.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  differ- 
ence existing  between  the  two  dispensations  cannot  in 
any  way  affect  the  subject  before  us,  and  that  it  is  as 
suitable  to  apply  the  token  of  the  Christian  economy  to 
children,  as  it  formerly  was  to  apply  to  them  the  token  of 
the  Abrahamic  economy. 

This  course  of  reasoning,  which  is  only  auxiliary  to 
the  main  argument,  was  introduced  for  the  particular  pur- 
pose of  removing  the  difficulties  which  have  frequently 
been  felt  in  regard  to  Infant  Baptism,  on  account  of  the 
change  from  one  dispensation  to  another.  This  change, 
which  is  admitted  to  have  been  great  and  extensive, 
could  not  affect  the  propriety  of  consecrating  children  to 
God  by  a  religious  rite,  for  the  plain  reason,  that  it  did 
not  affect  the  principle  on  which  such  consecration  rests. 
Though  it  affected  the  form  of  consecration,  it  did  not 
affect  the  propriety  of  consecrating  children  ;  because 
the  Christian  economy,  of  which  Baptism  is  the  seal,  as 


INFANT  BAPTISAI.  157 

properly  relates  to  children,  as  that  economy,  of  which 
circumcision  was  the  seal.  Consequently  no  reason 
against  Infant  Baptism  can  arise  from  the  difference  be- 
tween the  Christian  and  the  Abrahamic  economy. 

The  requisition  of  faith  in  order  to  Baptism,  may  be 
thought  to  be  a  proof,  that  the  application  of  Baptism 
was  meant  to  be  more  limited,  than  that  of  circumcision. 
But  before  admitting  this,  we  ought  carefully  to  examine 
the  subject. 

Of  whom,  then,  was  faith  required  in  order  to  Bap- 
tism '?  Of  those,  evidently,  who  were  capable  of  under- 
standing the  nature  of  the  requisition.  The  command 
to  believe  could  relate  to  no  other.  This  was  so  perfect- 
ly obvious,  that  no  teacher  of  Christianity  could  have 
any  occasion  to  mention  it.  This  command,  or  any 
other  command,  coming  from  a  just  God,  must  be  un- 
derstood as  relating  to  those  only,  who  were  capable  of 
complying  with  it.  So  that  the  fact,  stated  exactly,  was 
this ;  those  ivho  were  capable  of  believing,  that  is,  adult 
persons,  were  required  to  believe,  in  order  to  be  baptiz- 
ed. A  requisition,  not  unlike  this,  was  made  under 
the  former  dispensation.  Adult  persons,  in  order  to  be 
admitted  by  circumcision  into  the  society  of  God's  peo- 
ple, were  required  to  renounce  idolatry,  to  believe  in  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  to  submit  to  the  institutions  and 
laws  which  he  gave  by  Moses.  Such  faith  as  this,  under 
the  Mosaic  economy,  answered  to  the  faith  which  is  re- 
quired under  the  Christian  economy.  The  requisition  of 
faith,  then,  in  order  to  Baptism,  has  nothing  new  in  it, 
but  this,  that  the  faith  required  is  to  be  adapted  to 
the  circumstances  of  the  Christian  dispensation  ;  whereas 
the  faith  required  before,  was  to  be  adapted  to  the  Mo- 
saic dispensation.  Thus,  in  regard  to  adult  persons,  the 
14* 


158  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

case  is  very  similar  under  both  dispensations.  How 
then  can  the  fact,  that  Christ  required  adult  persons  to 
believe  in  order  to  be  baptized,  prove  that  Baptism  was  to 
be  more  limited  in  its  application,  than  circumcision  ? 

But  it  is  said,  that  the  circumcision  of  children  ivaz 
expressly  commanded,  and  that,  without  this  command, 
no  one  could  have  inferred  from  the  institution  of  cir- 
cumcision for  adults,  that  children  were  to  be  circumcis- 
ed. I  grant,  that  an  express  command  may  have  been 
necessary  at  first,  to  authorize  the  application  of  the  seal 
of  the  covenant  to  children.  And  if  Baptism  had  been 
the  first  seal,  such  a  command  might  have  been  necessary 
in  relation  to  this.  But  the  principle  having  been  once 
established,  that  the  seal  of  the  covenant  is  to  be  applied 
to  children,  there  can  be  no  occasion  for  the  repetition  of 
a  divine  command  to  justify  an  adherence  to  that  princi- 
ple. In  respect  to  circumcision,  an  express  command 
was  given  ;  because  circumcision  was  the  first  rite  which 
was  appointed  to  be  the  seal  of  God's  covenant.  Had 
Baptism  been  the  first  seal,  and  had  Infant  Baptism  been 
settled  by  divine  command,  as  infant  circumcision  was; 
and  had  the  practice  of  God's  people  been  for  ages  con- 
formed to  it ;  and  had  circumcision  been  then  introduced 
in  the  place  of  Baptism,  as  the  seal  of  the  Christian  cov- 
enant ;  who  will  say  that  a  new  command  would  have 
been  necessary  to  authorize  the  circumcision  of  infants  ? 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  so  great  a  change  was  to  be 
made,  as  the  withholding  of  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
from  the  seed  of  believers  ;  such  a  change  would  surely 
require  to  be  authorized  by  a  new  divine  command. 

If  any  one  still  thinks,  that  Christ's  requiring  men  to 
believe  and  be  baptized,  implies  that  infants  are  not  to  be 
baptized,  because  they  cannot  believe  ;  I  would  ask  him, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  159 

whether  the  same  mode  of  interpreting  scripture  would 
not  debar  infants  from  salvation  1  "  He  that  believeth 
shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  con- 
demned" is  the  grand  principle  of  the  New  Testament. 
Faith  is  required  in  order  to  salvation  as  much,  certain- 
ly, as  in  order  to  Baptism.  And  this  requisition  fur- 
nishes as  much  reason  for  excluding  infants  from  salva- 
tion, as  for  excluding  them  from  Baptism.  But  all  Chris- 
tians are  united  in  holding,  that  the  requisition  of  faith 
in  order  to  salvation,  cannot  be  applied  to  children. 
And  to  be  consistent,  they  must  hold,  that  the  requisi- 
tion of  faith  in  order  to  Baptism  cannot  be  applied  to 
children.  The  requisition  most  evidently  has  as  much 
to  do  with  salvation,  as  with  Baptism.  The  two  cases 
then  are  alike.  Christ  requires  men  to  believe,  in  order 
to  be  saved.  But  when  he  requires  this,  he  does  not  say, 
that  infants  are  excluded  from  salvation,  because  they 
cannot  believe.  So  he  requires  faith  in  order  to  Baptism. 
But  he  does  not  say,  that  infants  are  excluded  from  Bap- 
tism, because  they  cannot  believe.  Thus,  so  far  as  the 
requisition  of  faith  is  concerned,  there  is  no  more  pro- 
priety in  excluding  infants  from  Baptism,  than  in  ex- 
cluding them  from  salvation.  Now  if  we  admit  that, 
notwithstanding  this  requisition  of  faith,  infants  may  be 
saved;  we  must  admit,  also,  that  they  may  be  baptized. 
The  requisition  of  faith,  which  is  intended  only  for  adults, 
proves  nothing  one  way  or  the  other,  as  to  children. 
The  question  of  their  being  baptized,  or  saved,  must  be 
determined  on  other  grounds.  We  ask  not  whether 
they  believe ;  for  this  they  cannot  do ;  but,  whether  there 
are  other  reasons  for  baptizing  them,  and  other  reasons 
for  thinking  they  may  be  saved. 

The  same  principle  may  be  satisfactorily  illustrated 


1G0  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

by  2  Thess.  3:  10.  The  Apostle  says  ;  "  This  we  com- 
manded, that  if  any  one  would  not  work,  neither  should 
he  eat."  But  who  ever  understood  this  command  as  re- 
lating to  children,  and  as  implying,  that  they  were  to  be 
kept  from  eating  because  they  did  not  work  ? 

The  command  to  believe  and  be  baptized,  which  has 
now  been  considered,  is  the  most  plausible  argument  ev- 
er advanced  against  Infant  Baptism.  And,  if  I  mistake 
not,  our  opponents  rely  upon  it  more,  than  upon  any 
other.  But  they  ought  well  to  consider,  that  the  mode 
of  reasoning  which  they  adopt,  would  exclude  all  infants 
from  salvation.  And  they  certainly  have  good  reason  to 
pause,  before  they  admit  the  conclusiveness  of  an  argu- 
ment, which  would  lead  to  such  fearful  consequences. 

Having  thus  endeavoured  to  show  that  there  is  no 
valid  proof,  that  the  application  of  Baptism  was  meant  to 
be  more  limited,  than  that  of  circumcision  ;  I  must  take 
the  liberty  to  say,  there  is  in  one  respect,  clear  and  incon- 
trovertible proof,  that  it  was  meant  to  be  applied  more  ex- 
tensively. By  common  consent,  Baptism  is  to  be  ap- 
plied to  females,  though  circumcision  was  not.  This 
fact  suggests  the  following  inquiries.  Who  can  see  any 
reason,  why  the  seal  of  the  covenant  should  be  applied 
to  females  now,  more  than  formerly,  except  this,  that  the 
Christian  economy  has  a  spirit  of  more  expansive  benevo- 
lence, and  was  intended  to  diffuse  its  privileges  to  a  great- 
er extent  than  the  former  economy?  And  if  the  Chris- 
tian economy  really  possesses  this  character,  as  it  un- 
doubtedly does ;  and  if  from  this  expansiveness  of  its 
spirit,  and  this  enlargement  of  its  privileges,  it  does,  in  one 
important  case,  apply  its  seal  more  extensively  than  the 
former  economy  did  ;  who  can  suppose  that,  in  another 
case,  without  any  apparent  reason  whatever,  it  would  aj> 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  161 

ply  the  same  seal  less  extensively  ?  What  but  an  express 
divine  command,  or  the  well  known  example  of  inspired 
men,  could  satisfy  us  of  this  ? 

Third.  Import  of  Infant  Baptism. 

This  may  be  understood  from  the  preceding  discus- 
sion. Circumcision  was  the  seal  of  God's  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  his  offspring  ;  that  is,  of  his  gracious  de- 
sign and  promise  respecting  them.  This  design  and 
promise  was,  in  brief,  that  he  would  be  their  God.  Cir- 
cumcision signified,  that  such  was  the  promise  of  God, 
— such  the  plan  of  administration  he  had  fixed  upon  to- 
wards Abraham  and  his  seed.  And  it  manifestly  impli- 
ed, that  there  were  obligations  on  their  part,  to  love,  wor- 
ship and  obey  him,  who  promised  to  be  their  God. 
Thus  it  was  a  seal  of  God's  promise  to  them,  and  of  their 
obligations  to  him.  But  it  was  never  intended  to  signi- 
fy, that  all,  to  whom  it  was  applied,  were  actually,  at  the 
time,  intelligent  worshippers  and  servants  of  God.  In 
regard  to  infant  children,  this  was  impossible.  But  the 
rite  did  signify,  that,  in  process  of  time,  they  would  be 
under  high  obligations  to  worship  and  serve  God,  and 
that  he  would  pursue  a  course  of  conduct  towards  them, 
which  would  be  suited  to  influence  them  to  this.  As  to 
those,  who  had  attained  to  mature  understanding,  and 
were  voluntary  in  receiving  the  rite  of  circumcision,  it 
signified  their  readiness  to  accept  the  good  promised,  and 
to  perform  the  duties  required.  In  them,  it  was  an  indi- 
cation of  right  feeling  ;  a  profession  of  piety.  But  it  be- 
came so,  not  as  the  direct  and  necessary  import  of  the 
rite,  but  from  their  voluntary  agency  in  its  application. 
So  far  as  circumcision  was  concerned,  this  view  of  the 
subject  must  be  admitted  by  all  to  be  correct.     And  why 


162  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

not  in  regard  to  Baptism  ?  The  divine  economy,  though 
circumstantially  different,  is  the  same  in  substance  now, 
as  before  the  coming  of  Christ, — the  same,  most  evident- 
ly, so  far  as  relates  to  the  connexion  between  parents  and 
children,  and  the  high  interests  which  that  connexion 
involves.  When  this  Christian  rite  is  applied  to  believ- 
ers, it  is  a  seal  of  the  new  dispensation  towards  them. 
And  it  signifies  their  consent  to  this  economy  ;  their  be- 
lief of  its  truths,  and  their  readiness  to  receive  its  bless- 
ings, and  comply  with  its  obligations.  But  it  comes  to 
signify  this,  and  so  to  be  a  profession  of  piety,  not  as  the 
direct  and  necessary  import  of  Baptism,  but  from  the 
fact,  that  it  is  applied  to  those,  who  have  a  voluntary 
agency  in  receiving  it.  Its  general  import,  as  a  token 
of  God's  gracious  economy,  is  as  consistent  with  its  be- 
ing applied  to  children,  as  to  men.  Its  particular  import 
varies  with  the  state  and  circumstances  of  those  to  whom 
it  is  applied. 

Baptism  by  water  may  always  be  considered  as  signi- 
fying, that  those,  to  whom  it  is  applied,  are  the  subjects 
of  moral  pollution,  and  need  that  spiritual  cleansing,  or 
purification  from  sin,  which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Spir- 
it through  the  blood  of  Christ.  When  adult  believers 
receive  Baptism  themselves,  they  hereby  express  their 
belief,  that  they  are  by  nature  polluted  with  sin,  and 
must  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  order  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  heaven  ;  and  they  express  their  desire  for 
such  sanctification,  and  their  determination  to  seek  after 
it,  in  the  diligent  use  of  all  appointed  means.  When  we 
present  out  infant  children  for  Baptism,  we  express  our 
belief,  that  they  are  the  subjects  of  moral  pollution,  and 
must  be  born  of  the  Spirit  in  order  to  be  admitted  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  we  express  our  earnest  de- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  168 

sire  that  they  may  experience  this  spiritual  renovation,  and 
our  solemn  determination  to  labor  to  promote  it  by  fervent 
prayer  to  God,  and  by  faithful  attention  to  all  the  duties 
of  Christian  parents.  This  seems  to  me  a  perfectly  na- 
tural and  satisfactory  view  of  what  is  signified  by  the  Bap- 
tism of  children.  The  use  of  water  in  this  Christian  rite 
is  indeed  a  token  of  spiritual  cleansing  ;  not  however  as 
a  thing  actually  accomplished,  but  as  a  thing  which  is 
absolutely  necessary.  Whether  we  are  concerned  in  the 
Baptism  of  children  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  or  as 
members  of  the  church,  we  do,  by  this  public  token,  ex- 
press our  belief,  that  spiritual  purification  is  indispensa- 
bly necessary  for  the  children  who  are  baptized,  and  our 
determination  and  engagement  to  do  whatever  belongs  to 
us,  severally,  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  important 
end.  And  it  is  of  great  consequence  to  the  interests  of 
religion,  that  this  obvious  import  of  Infant  Baptism  should 
be  often  set  forth,  and  that  the  obligations  of  parents  and 
churches  should  be  often  explained  and  inculcated,  espe- 
cially at  the  time  of  the  Baptism. 

Offering  up  our  children  in  Baptism,  according  to  the 
Christian  formula,  implies  an  open  and  solemn  profession 
that  we  ourselves  receive,  with  cordial  faith,  what  the 
Scriptures  reveal  respecting  God,  and  that  we  dedicate 
our  children  to  him,  as  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit, 
with  earnest  desires  that  he  would  be  their  God,  their 
Redeemer,  and  their  Sanctifier. 

Fourth.    The  utility  of  Infant  Baptism. 

The  utility  of  positive  institutions  consists,  generally, 
in  the  moral  influence  they  exert  upon  us  ;  in  their  adapt- 
edness  to  promote  good  affections,  and  to  excite  us  to 
the  diligent  performance  of  duty.     Now  there  is  no  in- 


164  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

stitution  of  religion,  which  is  more  evidently  suited  to 
have  a  salutary  influence,  than  this.  When  we  conse- 
crate our  children  to  God  in  Baptism,  we  have  our  eyes 
turned  directly  to  that  glorious  Being,  to  whom  we  and 
our  offspring  belong,  and  we  are  made  to  feel  the  perfect 
reasonableness  of  such  a  consecration.  We  look  to  God's 
holy  and  merciful  economy,  of  which  Baptism  is  the  ap- 
pointed token,  and  are  impressed  with  the  divine  conde- 
scension and  goodness  manifested  in  it,  and  the  invalua- 
ble blessings  resulting  from  it.  The  transaction  is  pub- 
lic, and  on  this  account  is  likely  to  excite  in  us  a  more 
constant  recollection  of  the  sacred  obligations  which  bind 
us  as  parents,  and  greater  diligence  in  performing  the 
duties  we  owe  to  our  children. 

For  the  truth  of  these  remarks,  I  make  my  appeal  to 
thousands  of  pious  parents.  They  well  know  how  their 
hearts  have  been  affected  with  the  love  of  God,  and  the 
interests  of  the  soul,  while  they  have  been  engaged  in 
consecrating  their  children  to  God  in  Baptism ;  how 
earnestly  they  have  longed  and  prayed  for  their  salvation ; 
what  resolutions  they  have  made  to  bring  them  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ,  and  how  sensible 
the  effect  of  this  transaction  has  been  upon  them  after- 
wards. The  view  they  have  taken  of  God's  gracious 
promises  and  administration  proves  a  mighty  encourage- 
ment to  earnest  endeavours  and  prayers  for  the  good  of 
their  children.  If,  for  a  time,  their  endeavours  and 
prayers  seem  to  have  little  or  no  effect ;  still  they  are  not 
disheartened.  They  look  upon  their  children,  as  having 
been  placed  under  that  gracious  economy,  in  which  God 
says  to  them,  /  will  be  your  God,  and  the  God  of  your 
seed.  They  remember  with  what  glorious  success  he 
has  crowned  the  persevering  endeavours  of  pious  parents, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  16$ 

and  how  frequently  he  has  done   this,   after  many  years 
have  passed  away  in  sorrowful   disappointment.     Their 
confidence  in  the  merciful  covenant  of  God,   which   has 
been  sealed  to  them  and  their  children  by  the  sacred  rite 
of  Baptism,  bears  them   above  discouragement,   and   in- 
spires a  hope  of  the   salvation  of  their  offspring,  which 
nothing  is  able  to  destroy.     Now  it  is  evident,  that  all 
the  effect  which  this  public  and   sacred  rite  produces 
upon  pious  parents ;  this  deep  impression   of  their  obli- 
gations ;  this  excitement  of  their  good  affections  ;  their 
faithful  endeavours,  and  their  fervent,  persevering  prayers, 
turn  directly  to  the  benefit  of  their   children.     We   are 
not  to  look  at  the  mere  Baptism  of  a  little   child,  and  to 
confine  our  thoughts  to  the  act  itself,   or  to  the   present 
effect  of  it  upon  the  child.     We  must  view  this  transac- 
tion  in   all    its  relations  and  consequences.     We  must 
consider,  that  the  child  is  a  rational,  immortal   being, 
just  entered  on  his  probationary  state  ;  that   his  eternal 
happiness  depends  on  the  formation  of  a  virtuous  and  ho- 
ly character  ;  and  that  his  character  depends,  in   a  great 
measure,  on  the   circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed, 
and  the  moral  causes  which  act  upon  him,   in  the  first 
periods  of  his  existence.     We  must  then   consider  that 
the  child,   who  is  baptized  in  a  manner  correspondent, 
with   the  spirit  of  the  institution,   is,   at  the  very  com- 
mencement  of  his   being,    brought   into   circumstances 
highly  auspicious ;  that  he  is  placed  under  a  divine  econ- 
omy, which  secures  to  him  the  affections  and  prayers  of 
parents  and  other  Christians,   and   which   distils   upon 
childhood  and  youth  the   dews  of  divine  grace.     He   is 
placed  in  a  school,  where  he  is  to  receive  faithful  instruc- 
tion and  discipline,  and  to  be  trained  up  for  the  service 
of  Christ.     The  child,  who  is  offered  up  in  Baptism  by 
15 


166 


INFANT  BAPTISM, 


devout  parents  and  a  devout  church,  is  placed  in  these 
circumstances,  and  is  entitled  to  these  privileges;  the 
substance  of  which  is,  a  faithful,  Christian  education,  ac- 
companied with  the  divine  blessing.  All  this  is  signifi- 
ed by  Baptism.  The  design  of  the  transaction  evidently 
is,  to  produce  a  moral  effect  upon  parents  and  children  ; 
upon  parents  directly,  and  upon  children,  as  a  conse- 
quence. 

It  would  avail  little  to  say,  in  the  way  of  objection, 
that  parents  would  be  under  all  these  obligations,  and 
would  have  sufficient  motives  to  faithfulness,  without 
such  an  ordinance  as  Baptism.  The  obvious  design  of 
Baptism  is,  to  cause  these  obligations  to  be  felt  more  deep- 
ly and  constantly,  than  they  would  otherwise  be,  and  to 
give  greater  efficacy  to  these  motives,  than  they  would 
otherwise  have.  The  influence  of  public  rites  and  obser- 
vances has  been  acknowledged  in  all  ages,  both  in  civil 
and  religious  concerns.  In  our  own  country,  and  in 
other  countries,  they  are  kept  up,  in  order  to  perpetuate 
the  principles  of  civil  government.  Among  the  Israelites, 
they  were  established  for  the  purpose  of  giving  to  one 
generation  after  another,  a  knowledge,  and  a  lively  im- 
pression, of  the  principles  and  laws  of  their  religion. 
The  human  mind  is  so  constituted,  that  it  is  very  doubt- 
ful, whether  the  truths  of  religion  could  be  inculcated 
and  impressed  with  the  necessary  efficacy,  without  the 
help  of  public  rites  and  observances.  The  utility  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  which  is  generally  acknowledged  to  be 
great,  rests  on  the  very  same  principle,  as  that  which 
gives  importance  to  Infant  Baptism.  Thus  it  was  also 
with  the  utility  of  the  Passover  and  Circumcision.  And 
we  may  as  well  say,  that  the  principles  of  religion  might 
have  been  effectually  taught,  and  impressed,  and  trans,- 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


167 


mitted  from  one  generation  to  another  among  the  pos* 
terity  of  Abraham,  without  the  Passover,  or  Circumcis- 
ion, or  any  of  their  sacred  rites  ;  and  that  the  principles 
of  the  Christian  religion  might  be  effectually  taught  and 
impressed,  and  its  motives  rendered  sufficiently  power- 
ful, without  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  to  say  that  the  influ- 
ence of  such  a  rite,  as  Infant  Baptism,  is  unnecessary, 
and  that  parents  will  be  as  likely  to  feel  their  obligations 
and  attend  to  their  duties  without  it,  as  with  it.  The  ex- 
perience of  the  whole  world  is  in  favor  of  visible  signs 
and  tokens,  of  public  rites  and  observances.  The  hu* 
man  mind  requires  them,  as  means  of  inculcating  moral 
and  religious  truth.  To  undervalue  them  would  be  a 
discredit  to  our  understanding ;  and  to  neglect  them,  an 
injury  to  our  moral  feelings. 

But  suffer  me  here  to  say,  that  the  utility  of  Infant 
Baptism  cannot  be  measured,  by  the  influence  which  it 
has  actually  exerted  upon  the  generality  of  Christians, 
For  what  sacred  institution,  and  what  divine  truth,  has 
not  fallen  short  of  the  influence  which  it  ought  to  have 
upon  the  conduct  of  men  ?  The  question  is,  what  effect 
is  Infant  Baptism  designed  and  adapted  to  produce  ? 
What  has  been  its  influence  upon  those  parents,  whose 
minds  have  been  in  the  best  state ;  whose  parental  affec- 
tion has  been  most  highly  sanctified,  and  whose  piety, 
most  active  ?  And  what  will  be  its  influence,  when  the 
great  body  of  Christians  shall  come  to  be  fully  awake  to 
the  interests  of  religion,  and  shall  make  it  the  constant 
object  of  their  solicitude,  and  labors,  and  prayers,  that 
their  offspring,  from  one  generation  to  another,  may  be- 
come children  of  God,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heav- 
en ?  The  value  of  this  sacred  rite,  taken  in  connexion 
with  the  divine  economy  of  which   it  is  the  sign,   and 


368  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

with  the  obligations  of  parents  and  churches  which  it  is 
intended  to  enforce,  cannot  be  perfectly  known,  before 
the  present  low  state  of  religious  feeling  among  Chris- 
tians shall  give  place  to  a  more  elevated  piety,  and  to 
more  constant  and  more  faithful  exertion  to  promote  the 
welfare  of  the  rising  generation.  In  my  apprehension, 
it  is  chiefly  to  be  attributed  to  the  unfaithfulness  of  pa- 
rents and  churches,  and  their  failing  to  act  according  to 
the  spirit  of  this  divine  ordinance,  that  it  has  so  far  fall- 
en into  disrepute,  and  that  any  can  feel  themselves  justi- 
fied in  saying,  it  is  of  no  use. 

There  is  still  another  way,  in  which  children  may 
experience  the  salutary  effect  of  Baptism.  When  they 
come  to  adult  years  they  may  be  induced  to  attend  to 
the  duties  of  religion,  by  means  of  the  Baptism  which 
they  received  in  infancy.  When  a  child  of  ours  becomes 
capable  of  being  influenced  by  rational  considerations  ; 
we  may  address  him  in  such  a  manner  as  this  :  In  your 
infancy,  we  devoted  you  to  the  service  of  your  Creator  and 
Redeemer  ;  and  we  pid  upon  you  the  mark  of  that  gra- 
cious economy,  under  which  you  were  placed  by  your  birth. 
In  that  transaction,  we  bound  ourselves  to  bring  you  up 
for  God,  and  to  seek  diligently  your  eternal  happiness. 
As  you  are  note  come  to  years  of  understanding,  you  are 
bound  to  devote  yourself  to  God,  and,  by  your  own  act, 
to  confirm  what  your  parents  did  for  you  in  your  infan- 
cy. The  child  may  be  taught,  that  there  is  nothing  so 
conducive  to  his  highest  interest,  as  for  him  to  choose  the 
God  of  his  parents  for  his  God.  It  may  be  inculcated  up- 
on him,  that,  by  neglecting  his  soul,  and  living  in  sin,  he 
will  be  guilty  of  casting  contempt  on  the  pious  solicitude, 
the  exertions  and  prayers  of  his  parents  ;  on  the  sacred  or- 
dinance, by  which  he   was  consecrated  to  the  service  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  lb\) 

Christ,  and  on  all  the  obligations  laid  upon  him,  and  all 
the  privileges  secured  to  him,  by  such  an  early  conse- 
cration. If  a  youth,  who  was  devoted  to  God  by  Baptism 
in  infancy,  possesses  even  an  ordinary  degree  of  moral 
sensibility ;  considerations  like  these  must  produce  a 
powerful  effect  upon  him,  and,  through  the  divine  bless- 
ing, may  prove  the  means  of  his  salvation. 

The  view  which  I  have  taken  of  this  subject  is,  you 
perceive,  very  different  from  that  which  was  entertained 
by  most  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers.  They  attribut- 
ed to  Baptism  itself  a  mysterious  inherent  efficacy.  They 
supposed  that  it  directly  conveyed  grace  and  salvation  to 
the  soul,  and  that,  without  it,  no  one  could  be  saved. 
But  I  have  represented  the  utility  and  efficacy  of  Infant 
Baptism,  as  consisting  primarily,  in  the  influence  it  has 
upon  the  feelings  and  conduct  of  parents;  and  then, 
secondarily,  in  the  effect  which  parental  instruction,  ex- 
ample, and  prayer  produce  upon  children.  This  effect  I 
have  considered  as  resulting  from  God's  gracious  econo- 
my ;  that  is,  his  appointment  and  promise.  And  I  have 
referred  and  always  would  refer  to  facts  which  occur  in 
the  course  of  divine  providence,  as  proof  of  the  correct- 
ness of  these  representations.  These  facts  are  striking 
and  momentous,  and  deserve  to  be  contemplated  again 
and  again  with  the  liveliest  interest.  Behold  the  mighty 
influence  of  parental  character  and  instruction !  How 
is  it  that  pagan  idolatry,  Jewish  infidelity,  and  the  vio- 
lent superstition  of  Mohammed  are  continued  in  the 
world,  and  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another  ? 
What  is  it  which  leads  us  to  expect,  that  according  to 
the  common  course  of  events,  the  children  of  pagans  will 
be  pagans,  and  that  the  children  of  Mahometans  will  be 
Mahometans,  and  the  children  of  Jews,  Jews  ?  It  is  the 
15* 


170  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

general  principle,  established  by  God  himself,  that  the 
character  of  children  is  formed  by  parental  influence. 
And  is  not  this  as  true  in  regard  to  Christians,  as  in 
regard  to  any  other  class  of  men  ?  In  ordinary  cases, 
the  children  of  faithful  Christian  parents  will  be  Chris- 
tians ;  and  they  will  become  so,  by  means  of  the  influence 
which  their  parents  exert  upon  them,  in  their  early  edu- 
cation. Such  is  the  divine  economy.  That  children 
are  placed  under  it  is  signified  by  Baptism.  And  the  ap- 
plication of  Baptism  to  children  is  a  suitable  expression 
of  the  piety  of  parents,  and  of  their  love  to  the  souls  of 
their  offspring,  and  is  a  powerful  means  of  exciting  them 
to  recollect  and  feel  their  obligations,  and  to  be  active 
and  persevering  in  the  performance  of  parental  duties. 
And  let  me  add,  that  when  the  piety  and  diligence  of  pa- 
rents shall  rise  to  a  proper  height,  and  they  shall  address 
themselves  to  the  duties,  which  they  owe  to  their  children, 
with  united  zeal  and  prayer ;  the  true  import  of  Infant 
Baptism  will  be  more  fully  understood,  and  its  utility  ac- 
knowledged with  more  fervent  gratitude  to  God.* 

Fifth.  Relation  of  baptized  children  to  the  church. 

This  relation  of  children  to  the  church  is  generally  re- 
presented by  the  most  respectable  authors  as  infant  mem- 
bership. Against  this  I  can  see  no  valid  objections,  if  the 
language  is  understood  with  suitable  qualifications.  In  a 
very  important,  though  in  a  very  qualified  sense,  baptiz- 
ed children  may  be  considered  as  infant  members  of  the 
Christian  church  ;  just  as  formerly,  the  infant  children 
of  the  Priests  were  infant  members  of  the  Priesthood ; 
and  as  now,  all  children  that  are  born  here,  are  consider- 
ed as  infant  members  of  our  civil  community,  entitled  to 
enjoy,  as  they  may  be  capable,  the  benefits  of  society, 

*  See  Appendix  C 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  171 

and  in  due  time  to  become  complete  and  active  members. 
But  whatever  may  be  the  language  which  we  choose  to 
employ,  it  can  never  be  consistent  to  regard  infant  chil- 
dren as  members  of  the  church  in  the  peculiar  sense  in 
which  adult  believers  are  members ;  for  of  this  relation 
they  are  manifestly  incapable.  Nor  can  it  be  implied, 
that  baptized  children  can  ever  become  members  of  the 
church  in  this  peculiar  sense,  on  any  lower  terms,  than 
those  which  are  prescribed  for  others.  They  can  be  ad- 
mitted to  sustain  this  high  relation  only  on  the  condition 
of  their  exhibiting  the  character  of  Christian  piety.  Still 
it  is  clear  that  baptized  children  bear  a  real  and  very  en- 
dearing relation  to  the  church.  And  although  they  are 
not  at  present  capable  of  being  members,  in  the  full  sense 
in  which  believers  are  ;  they  are,  even  now,  capable  of 
enjoying  some  of  the  benefits  resulting  from  their  condi- 
tion, as  children  of  the  church  ;  and  they  will  be  more 
and  more  capable  of  enjoying  these  benefits  as  they  ad- 
vance in  age ;  and  at  length,  unless  their  own  wicked- 
ness prevent,  they  will  become  active,  faithful  Christians. 
Such  is  the  design  of  the  economy  under  which  they  are 
placed  ;  such  the  end  of  their  being  consecrated  to  God, 
and  placed  in  the  school  of  the  church.  And  we  may 
hope  that,  through  divine  mercy,  this  will  ordinarily  be 
the  happy  result. 

To  avoid  as  far  as  may  be  the  difficulties  which  at- 
tend this  subject,  we  must  consider  the  relation  of  bap- 
tized children  to  the  church  to  be  such,  and  only  such, 
as  they  are  capable  of  sustaining.  At  first,  they  are  merely 
children  of  the  church ;  that  is,  children  of  those  who  are 
members  of  the  church.  The  privileges  which  belong  to 
them  at  this  period  are  chiefly  prospective.  After  they 
become  capable  of  receiving  instruction,  they  stand  in  the 


172  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

relation  of  catechumens, — young  persons  who  are  in  a 
course  of  discipline  and  training  for  the  service  of  Christ. 
Here  the  advantages  of  their  condition  begin  to  appear. 
As  children  consecrated  to  God,  they  are  brought  under 
a  system  of  means  suited  in  the  highest  degree  to  pro- 
mote their  salvation.  If  through  the  divine  blessing, 
these  means  prove  effectual,  they  become  devoted  servants 
of  Christ,  and  members  in  due  form  of  his  spiritual  king- 
dom ;  that  is  ;  they  come  to  be  just  what  it  was  intend- 
ed in  their  baptism  that  they  should  be.  Thus  the  rela- 
tion of  baptized  children  to  the  church  is  not  an  imaginary 
or  unintelligible  relation,  but  one  which  is  real  and  ob- 
vious, and  which  secures  to  them  the  privileges  of  that  gra- 
cious dispensation,  under  which  they  are  placed,  and 
gives  them  a  special  prospect  of  obtaining  its  spiritual  and 
eternal  blessings. 

Sixth.  Duties  of  parents  and  the  church  toicards 
baptized  children. 

On  this  subject,  which  is  of  the  highest  practical  im- 
portance, my  remarks  must  be  very  summary. 

When  we  dedicate  our  infant  children  to  God  in  Bap- 
tism, we  should  consider  them  as  rational  and  moral  be- 
ings just  commencing  an  endless  existence.  Instead  of 
confining  our  thoughts  to  their  bodily  wants  and  their 
earthly  interests,  we  should  direct  our  attention  chiefly  to 
the  worth  of  their  immortal  souls,  to  the  state  of  moral  de- 
generacy and  ruin  into  which  they  are  brought  by  their 
natural  birth,  and  to  the  grace  of  God  which  has  provi- 
ded deliverance  and  salvation  for  them ;  and  then  we 
should  draw  near  to  the  God  of  mercy  with  strong  desire 
and  fervent  prayer,  beseeching  him  that  these  dear  chil- 
dren, who  are  destined  to  live   forever  in  heaven,  or  in 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  173 

hell,  may  inherit  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  cove- 
nant ;  and  fhat  in  the  morning  of  their  existence,  they  may 
be  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  this  solemn  trans- 
action we  should  consecrate  ourselves  anew  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God,  and  resolve,  humbly,  but  firmly,  to  be  faith- 
ful to  our  children. 

The  general  duty  of  parents,  and  of  the  church,  is 
the  same ;  namely  ;  such  a  course  of  pious  instruction 
and  discipline,  such  an  example  of  holiness,  and  such 
fervent  prayer  both  in  public  and  private,  as  are  suited 
to  promote  the  salvation  of  the  rising  age,  and  to  trans- 
mit the  Christian  religion,  with  all  its  institutions  and 
blessings,  to  future  generations.  This  duty  belongs  pri- 
marily to  parents.  In  every  thing  which  is  important  to 
their  children,  they  are  to  take  the  lead.  But  their  pi- 
ous efforts  are  to  be  encouraged  and  sustained  by  the 
whole  body  of  Christians,  with  whom  they  are  associat- 
ed. These  are  all  under  obligation  to  cherish  a  lively 
interest  in  the  children  of  the  church,  and  with  unwea- 
ried diligence  to  labor  for  their  good  ;  always  looking  to 
God  for  those  spiritual  blessings  which  result  from  his 
gracious  covenant. 

It  is  impossible  for  me,  in  this  place,  to  give  a  par- 
ticular enumeration  of  the  methods,  which  ought  to  be 
pursued  by  parents  and  by  the  church,  for  the  welfare  of 
children.  I  shall  only  say,  that  our  benevolent  efforts 
are  to  be  made  in  various  ways,  and  to  be  continued  so 
long  as  there  is  any  hope  of  success  ;  and  I  know  not 
why  we  should  abandon  such  a  hope,  while  the  life  of 
our  children  continues. 

On  the  question,  whether  the  church  ever  ought,  by 
a  public  act,  to  cut  off  those,  who  give  evidence  of  obsti- 
nate impiety,  there  have  been  various  opinions.     That 


174  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

view  of  the  subject,  which  I  have  found  the  most  satis- 
factory, is  briefly  as  follows.  The  church  is  fo  join  with 
parents  in  administering  instruction,  admonition  and 
warning  to  children  and  youth  in  the  most  discreet,  af- 
fectionate, and  faithful  manner  ;  and  to  do  this  persever- 
ingly.  In  judging  of  the  reasons,  which  ought  to  en- 
courage us  to  exertion,  we  are  not  to  attend  chiefly  to 
present  appearances  ;  but  are  to  consider  the  forbear- 
ance and  long  suffering  of  God,  and  the  multiplied  in- 
stances in  which  his  grace  has  visited  those  who  had 
long  lived  in  sin,  and  who,  in  human  apprehension,  had 
been  fitted  for  destruction.  And  when  those  who  have 
been  devoted  to  God  in  Baptism,  wander  far  and  long  from 
the  path  of  duty,  and  show  fearful  symptoms  of  obdura- 
cy ;  we  are  not  quickly  to  despair  of  their  salvation,  but 
are  to  follow  them  with  every  effort  which  the  sincerest 
love  can  dictate.  And  when  no  other  effort  seems  to 
promise  any  good,  we  are  to  abound  in  prayer,  relying 
on  the  infinite  grace  of  God,  and  earnestly  hoping  that 
our  prayers  will  prevail,  and  that  our  children  will  at 
length  be  persuaded  to  consider  their  ways,  and  turn  to 
the  Lord.* 

It  is,  in  my  view,  utterly  inexpedient  to  attempt  to 
fix  upon  any  particular  age,  at  which  those  who  were 
baptized  in  infancy,  and  who  exhibit  no  evidence  of  pi- 
ety, .are  to  be  abandoned  by  the  church,  as  those  for 
whom  no  farther  efforts  ought  to  be  made.  For  suppose 
you  fix  upon  the  age  of  eighteen,  or  twenty,  or  twenty 
one  :  who  can  be  sure  that  a  youth  at  that  age,  though 
without  any  evidence  of  regeneration,  may  not  be  in  a 
state  of  mind,  which  is  more  susceptible  of  good  impres- 
sions, and  which  affords  more  hope  of  salvation,  than  at 

*  See  Appendix  D. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  175 

any  period  of  his  life  before  ?  Now  if  any  person  should 
be  in  this  state,  and  the  church  should  adopt  a  princi- 
ple like  what  I  have  referred  to ;  they  must  forthwith 
exclude  such  a  person  from  all  the  advantages  of  their 
Christian  friendship ;  and  they  must  do  this  at  the  very- 
time,  when  those  advantages  would  be  most  highly  prized. 
How  directly  would  such  a  principle  oppose  all  the  feel- 
ings of  Christian  benevolence  and  compassion !  And 
what  havock  would  it  make  of  the  interests  of  the  soul ! 
To  conclude.  The  day  of  Zion's  glory  draws  near. 
And  when  that  happy  day  arrives,  a  clearer  light  will 
shine  upon  the  minds  of  God's  people,  as  to  the  princi- 
ples and  rites  of  Christianity.  The  duties  of  parents  to 
their  children  will  be  more  correctly  understood,  and 
more  diligently  and  successfully  performed.  Division 
and  strife  will  cease ;  and  those  who  love  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  will  be  of  one  mind.  The  shortest  and 
best  way,  therefore,  to  solve  our  doubts,  and  settle  our 
differences,  is,  to  labor  unitedly  and  earnestly  to  hasten 
the  arrival  of  that  blessed  day,  when  a  brighter  sun 
will  arise  upon  the  church,  and  quickly  chase  away  all 
the  shades  of  night.  Then  Christians,  having  a  more 
perfect  illumination,  and  being  united  in  judgement  and 
feeling,  will  more  justly  prize  the  blessings  of  the  Chris- 
tian economy,  and  will  combine  their  prayers  and  efforts 
to  transmit  those  blessings  from  one  generation  to  anoth- 
er, and  to  promote  the  increasing  and  perpetual  prosper- 
ity of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom. 


LECTURE  VIII. 


MODE   OF    BAPTISM. 


Introductory  remarks. — Two  propositions.  1.  It  cannot  be  certainly  determined 
from  the  New  Testament  that  immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode.  2.  Chris- 
tians should  not  consider  the  mode  of  Baptism  of  essential  consequence. 

The  subject  of  Infant  Baptism  has  no  necessary 
connexion  with  the  mode  of  Baptism.  Christians  who 
baptize  by  immersion,  as  well  as  those  who  baptize  in 
other  ways,  may  apply  Baptism  to  infants,  and  in  instan- 
ces not  to  be  numbered,  have  in  fact  done  this.  While, 
on  the  other  hand,  those,  who  administer  Baptism  by 
sprinkling,  as  well  as  those  who  use  immersion,  may  con- 
fine it  to  believers.  If  Pedobaptists  were  now  convinc- 
ed, that  immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode,  it  would 
make  no  difference  in  their  belief,  as  to  the  duty  of  In- 
fant Baptism.  This  being  the  case,  I  was,  for  a  time,  re- 
solved to  treat  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism  by  itself, 
and  wholly  to  decline  the  controversy  respecting  the 
mode  of  Baptism. 

But  on  farther  consideration,  I  have  become  satisfied, 
that  my  intended  silence  on  the  mode  of  Baptism  would 
be  liable  to  misconstruction.  I  have  therefore  concluded 
to  make  a  few  remarks  on  this  point,  though  with  all  pos- 
sible brevity. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  177 

It  is  not  to  be  forgotten,  that  the  particular  mode  of 
Baptism  is  regarded  by  Pedobaptists  generally,  as  a  sub- 
ject of  no  essential  consequence.  For  myself,  I  could, 
without  any  scruple  of  conscience,  adopt  immersion  as 
the  usual  mode.  And  it  would  afford  me  real  pleasure 
to  conform  in  this  respect  to  the  views  of  my  Baptist 
brethren,  and  thus  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  put  an  end 
to  a  controversy,  which  so  unhappily  divides  the  friends 
of  Christ,  and  so  far  hinders  the  influence  of  the  Gospel. 
With  Pedobaptists,  the  question  as  to  the  mode  of  Bap- 
tism, is  a  question  of  expediency. 

In  this  concluding  Lecture,  I  propose  to  suggest,  un- 
der two  distinct  propositions,  the  principal  thoughts 
which  have  occurred  to  me  on  the  manner  of  performing 
this  rite. 

First.  It  cannot  be  certainly  determined  from  the 
New  Testament,  that  Baptism  was  administered  by  im- 
mersion. 

What  declaration  is  there  in  the  New  Testament, 
that  every  one  who  was  baptized  was  completely  immersed 
in  water  1  What  command  is  there  of  Christ,  or  of  his 
Apostles,  expressly  requiring  that  Christians  should  be 
baptized  by  total  immersion  1  The  manner  of  various 
purifications  and  other  rites,  under  the  Mosaic  economy, 
was  exactly  described;  and  thus  it  was  made  evident, 
that  God  would  have  those  rites  executed  in  one  precise 
form.  But  the  particular  manner  of  administering  Bap- 
tism is  no  where  described. 

It  cannot  be  certainly  determined,  that  total  immer- 
sion was  the  only  mode  of  Baptism  from  the  signification 
of  pccTTTt'Cw,  and  the  nouns  derived  from  it. 

Though  it  might  be  supposed  that  /?a7ir/£cD,  being  a 
derivative  from  panto),  would  have  a  less  definite  and 
16 


178  INFANT  BAPTIgM. 

forcible  meaning  than  the  original  ;  they  seem  to  be  of- 
ten used  in  the  same  sense.  But  a  total  immersion  is 
not  necessarily  signified  by  either.  This  is  perfectly  evi- 
dent from  the  New  Testament.  First,  as  to  panTw, 
Matt.  26:  23.  "  He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in 
the  dish  ;;'  l^i^axpaQ — Trtv  xe7pu.  Mark  has  it,  6  tpfian- 
t6[X£voq>  "  he  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish."  Now 
whatever  liquid  the  dish  contained,  it  cannot  be  suppos- 
ed, that  Judas  plunged  his  hand  all  over  in  that  liquid. 
Nothing  more  can  be  meant,  than  that  he  took  the  bitter 
herbs  which  were  eaten  at  the  Passover,  or  other  articles 
of  food,  and  with  his  fingers  dipped  them  in  the  sauce 
prepared.  And  yet  it  is  said  by  Matthew,  that  Judas 
dipped  his  hand,  and  by  Mark,  that  he  himself  dipped  in 
the  dish.  And  as  to  fiaiiTt^a),  baptize  ; — the  word  does 
indeed  signify  to  immerse  or  dip  in  water ;  but  it  also 
signifies  to  wash,  and  to  wash  in  different  ways.  "  Di- 
vers washings"  are  mentioned  Heb.  9:  10.  The  original 
is  diayogoig  pamiOftolg,  divers  baptisms.  These  were 
not  all  performed  in  one  way  ;  and  certainly  not  by  im- 
mersion. The  adjective  diacfogog  signifies  different,  of 
various  hinds,  dissimilar  ;  as  in  Rom.  12:  6.  The  divers 
baptisms,  or  ablutions,  mentioned  Heb.  9:  10,  doubtless 
included  all  the  different  ablutions,  or  ceremonial  cleans- 
ings,  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law.  These  were  perform- 
ed in  different  ways,  but  chiefly  by  sprinkling  consecrat- 
ed water.  The  word  pcniTiGjuog,  baptism,  is  used  with 
great  latitude  of  signification  in  Mark  7:  4.  The  Evan- 
gelist says,  the  Pharisees  hold  many  other  usages,  "  as 
baptisms  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  beds, 
or  couches."  The  common  version  has  tables.  But  the 
word  xXivr]  uniformly  signifies  a  couch  to  sleep  on,  or  to 
recline  upon  at  meals.     Now  the  baptism,  or  ceremonial 


IX  FA  NT  BAPTISM.  179 

purification  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and 
couches,  were  doubtless  performed  in  different  ways. 
Cups  and  pots  and  brazen  vessels  might  possibly  be  im- 
mersed all  over  in  water ;  though  this  is  not  probable. 
But  to  suppose  that  beds,  or  couches,  were  immersed  in 
the  same  way  would  be  unreasonable,  especially  since 
one  of  the  prescribed  modes  of  ceremonial  purification, 
and  indeed  the  most  common  mode,  was,  the  sprinkling 
of  CO  xecrated  water. 

Since  then  it  appears,  that  pantiopoq,  baptism,  when 
used  to  denote  ceremonial  purification,  did  not  by  any 
means  signify  immersion  exclusively,  and  generally  signi- 
fied other  modes  of  purification  ;  why  should  we  suppose 
that  the  word,  panTi£(D,  always  signifies  to  immerse  when 
used  to  denote  a  Christian  rite  1  If  baptism  was  per- 
formed in  different  ways  under  the  former  dispensation  ; 
how  can  we  determine,  merely  from  the  use  of  the  word, 
that  it  is  not  to  be  performed  in  different  ways  under  the 
present  dispensation  ?  What  is  there  in  the  Christian  re- 
ligion which  would  prevent  a  word  from  being  used  with 
as  much  latitude  of  signification,  as  it  was  under  the  Mo- 
saic economy  1 

If  it  were  the  case,  that  /?«7iz7£g>  always  signifies  to 
dip  or  immerse  all  over  in  water,  when  applied  to  other 
subjects ;  it  would  by  no  means  certainly  follow  that  it 
has  this  signification,  when  applied  to  the  Christian  rite 
of  Baptism.  There  may  be  sufficient  reasons,  why  a 
religious  rite,  though  denoted  by  a  word  in  common  use, 
should  not  be  performed  in  a  manner  exactly  in  confor- 
mity with  the  commou  signification  of  that  word.  This 
we  well  know  is  the  case  with  the  word,  by  which  the 
other  Christian  ordinance  is  denoted.  The  word  Supper 
in  English,  and  dnnvov  in  Greek,  have  a  very  different 


ISO  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

sense  when  applied  to  that  institution,  from  what  they 
have  in  ordinary  cases.  Eating  a  morsel  of  bread  does 
not  constitute  a  supper,  a  principal  meal ;  although  this 
last  is  the  common  signification  of  dtltzvov.  But  in  this 
religious  rite,  eating  a  small  morsel  of  bread  is  called  a 
Supper.  1  Cor.  11:  20.  And  the  Apostle  charged  the 
Corinthians  with  abusing  the  ordinance,  because  they 
made  use  of  more  food,  than  the  design  of  the  ordinance 
required.  Now  if  the  word  which  denotes  one  Christian 
rite,  has  a  sense  so  widely  different  from  its  usual  sense ; 
why  may  it  not  be  so  with  the  word,  which  denotes  the 
other  Christian  rite  ?  As  dtlnvov,  in  reference  to  one 
rite,  signifies,  not  a  usual  meal,  but  only  a  very  small 
quantity  of  bread ;  why  may  not  pami^o),  in  reference 
to  the  other  rite,  signify,  not  a  complete  dipping  or  wash- 
ing, but  the  application  of  water  in  a  small  degree  ? 
This  would  present  the  two  institutions  in  the  same  light. 
In  the  first ;  as  bread  and  wine  are  used,  not  to  nourish 
and  invigorate  the  body,  but,  as  mere  symbols,  for  spirit- 
ual purposes,  or,  as  signs  of  spiritual  blessings  ;  a  very 
small  quantity  is  sufficient.  Indeed  the  Apostle  decides, 
that  a  small  quantity  is  better  suited  to  the  ends  of  the 
institution,  than  a  larger  quantity.  So  in  the  other ;  as 
water  is  used,  not  to  cleanse  the  body,  but  merely  as  a 
sign  of  spiritual  purification  ;  a  small  quantity  of  water 
must  be  sufficient ; — as  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  this 
ordinance,  as  a  small  quantity  of  bread  and  wine  is  for 
the  purposes  of  the  other.  The  nourishment  of  the  body 
in  the  one  case,  and  the  cleansing  of  it  in  the  other,  be- 
ing no  part  of  the  end  to  be  answered  ;  a  large  quantity 
either  of  bread  or  of  water  can  be  of  no  essential  conse- 
quence. 

I  shall  now  endeavour  to  show,  that  the  circumstances. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  181 

which  attended  the  several  instances  of  Baptism  record- 
ed in  the  New  Testament,  do  not  prove  that  immersion 
is  the  only  proper  mode. 

The  circumstance  mentioned  John  3:  23,  does  not 
prove  this.  "  John  was  baptizing  in  ^Enon,  because  there 
was  much  icatcr  there."  In  such  a  country  as  Palestine, 
John  found  it  of  special  importance,  (as  any  Christian 
missionary  would  at  the  present  day,)  to  collect  the  mul- 
titude of  people  who  resorted  to  him  for  instruction  and 
Baptism,  in  a  place,  where  there  was  an  abundant  supply 
of  water.  This  he  knew  to  be  necessary  for  their  ac- 
commodation, and  even  their  subsistence.  So  that  there 
is  not  the  least  need  of  supposing,  that  the  mention  of 
much  water,  or  many  springs  or  streams  of  water,  vdata 
Tiokkd,  had  any  reference  to  the  particular  mode  of  Bap- 
tism. For  whatever  the  mode  might  have  been,  a  large 
supply  of  water  was  indispensable  to  such  a  concourse  of 
people  ;  and  such  a  supply  could  be  obtained  in  only  a 
few  places  in  that  country.  And  who  can  suppose  the 
waters  of  ^Enon  were  resorted  to  for  the  simple  purpose 
of  baptizing,  when  three  thousand  were,  in  one  day, 
baptized  by  the  Apostles  even  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  dry- 
est  season  of  the  year? 

That  total  immersion  was  the  mode  of  Baptism  can- 
not be  proved  from  the  circumstance  mentioned  Matt. 
3:  16,  that  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized  of  John  in  the 
river  Jordan,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water. 
The  preposition  dno  generally  signifies /row.  "  He  went 
up  from  the  water  ;" — an  expression  perfectly  natural  and 
proper,  on  supposition  that  he  had  only  gone  into  the  river 
where  the  water  was  a  few  inches  deep,  or  that  he  had 
gone  merely  to  the  edge  of  the  river,  without  stepping  in- 
to the  water  at  all.  It  will  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  riv- 
16* 


182  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

er  Jordan  had  banks  of  considerable  height  above  the 
water,  except  when  it  was  so  swollen  by  the  melted  snows 
of  Antilibanus,  as  to  fill  its  upper  channel.  Of  course, 
Jesus  must  have  ascended,  or  gone  up  an  ascent,  when  he 
left  the  water,  whether  he  had  been  in  the  water  so  as 
to  be  immersed,  or  had  been  only  to  the  margin  of  the 
water. 

The  same  remarks  may  be  made  respecting  the  Bap- 
tism of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  Acts  8:  38.  "  They  went 
down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  ; 
and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come  up 
out  of  the  water,  etc."  Every  one  acquainted  with  the 
Greek  language  knows,  that  the  passage  may  be  just  as 
well  rendered,  "  they  descended  to  the  water,  and  as- 
cended from  it."  Besides,  it  has  often  been  remarked, 
and  not  without  reason,  that,  as  it  is  said  of  both  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch,  "  they  went  down  into  the  water  ;"  the 
mere  circumstance  of  going  into  the  water  no  more  proves 
that  the  Eunuch  was  immersed,  than  it  proves  that  Philip 
was. 

It  is  evident  then  that  the  argument  above  mentioned 
in  favor  of  immersion  from  the  Baptism  of  Jesus,  and  of 
the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  is  founded  on  the  mere  sound  of 
the  words  used  in  the  common  Version.  On  the  slight- 
est examination,  the  argument  vanishes. 

The  circumstances  attending  the  Baptism  of  the  jail- 
er equally  fail  of  proving  that  he  was  baptized  by  immer- 
sion.    Acts  16:  19—39. 

In  the  first  place,  he  was  baptized  in  the  night.  Se- 
condly ;  he  was  evidently  baptized  in  the  outer  prison. 
Paul  and  Silas  were  thrust  into  the  inner  prison,  or  dun- 
geon. After  the  earthquake,  the  jailer  brought  them 
out ;  that  is,  out  of  the  dungeon,  but  clearly,  not  out  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  185 

the  limits  of  the  prison.  There  Paul  taught  him  and  his 
household;  and  there,  in  all  probability,  he  baptized 
them.  Thirdly  ;  after  the  jailer  professed  to  believe,  he* 
was  baptized  immediately.  These  three  circumstances, 
namely,  his  being  baptized  at  such  a  time,  in  such  a  place, 
and  immediately  after  professing  to  believe,  are  very  far 
from  proving  that  immersion  was  the  mode  of  Bap- 
tism. They  rather  seem  to  prove  the  contrary. — If  any 
one  should  say,  there  was  probably  a  stream  or  fountain 
of  water  in  the  prison,  or  a  bath  filled  with  water,  suffi- 
cient for  baptizing  by  immersion ;  I  would  merely  ask, 
what  evidence  he  finds  of  this  in  the  New  Testament? 

Nor  can  it  be  proved  that  immersion  was  the  prevail- 
ing mode  of  Baptism  from  the  account  given,  Acts  10,  of 
the  Baptism  of  those  who  were  converted  at  the  house  of 
Cornelius. 

After  Peter  had  preached,  and  the  Gentiles  believed, 
and  received  the  Holy  Ghost ;  Peter  said  :  "  can  any  man 
forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized?"  It  is 
most  natural  to  understand  this  to  mean,  can  any  man 
forbid  water  to  be  brought  1  It  is  far  less  natural  to  un- 
derstand it  to  mean,  can  any  man  forbid  us  to  go  out  to 
a  river  or  fountain  of w atcr  ?  It  seems  impossible  that 
this  account  should  be  thought  by  any  one  to  favor  the 
mode  of  baptizing  by  immersion. 

And  what  evidence  of  this  mode  of  baptizing  can  be 
derived  from  the  Baptism  of  the  three  thousand  converts, 
as  related  in  Acts  2  ?  The  place  of  those  numerous  Bap- 
tisms was  not  by  the  river  Jordan,  nor  at  ^Enon  where 
there  was  much  water ;  but  at  Jerusalem.  It  was  too  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  which  was  about  the  twentieth  of 
May.  At  that  season,  which  was  summer  at  Jerusalem, 
there  was  no  rain.     The  brook  Kidron  was  doubtless  dry. 


184  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

And  there  was  no  natural  fountain  of  water  in  Jerusalem, 
or  near  it,  except  the  pool  of  Siloam,  or  Siloah,  (also  call- 
ed Gihon,  2  Chron.  32:  30,)  which  is  not  far  from  the 
Southeast  corner  of  the  city,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Zion 
and  Moriah.  This  is  "  the  only  fountain,  whose  waters 
gladdened  the  city."*  Such  having  been  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  is  there  no  difficulty  in  supposing, 
that  the  Apostles  found  places  where  they  could  baptize 
three  thousand  in  one  day  by  immersion  ?  All  the  Apos- 
tles were  undoubtedly  engaged  in  baptizing  at  the  same, 
time.  And  if  they  baptized  by  immersion,  they  probably 
made  use  of  separate  tanks,  cisterns,  or  bathing  places  in 
private  houses.  But  is  there  no  difficulty  in  supposing 
that  they  divided  themselves  into  so  many  different  com- 
panies for  the  purpose  of  administering  the  rite  of 
baptism?  And  is  there  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that 
they  had  access  to  so  many  bathing  places  ?  These 
doubtless  were  confined  to  the  houses  of  the  more 
wealthy  ;  among  whom  few  could  at  that  time  be  found  in 
Jerusalem,  who  were  disposed  in  any  way  to  befriend  the 
cause  of  Christ.  And  what  intimation  is  there,  that  the 
apostles  made  use  of  such  bathing  places  for  the  purpose 
of  baptizing  the  three  thousand  converts?  And  what 
reason  have  we  to  suppose,  that  such  a  multitude,  who 
were  suddenly  collected  from  various  regions,  and  who, 
we  must  presume,  were  generally  poor,  had  such  changes 
of  raiment,  as  would  have  been  necessary  for  baptizing 
by  immersion  ? 

But  there  is  still  another  difficulty  which  meets  us. 
After  much  consideration,  I  think  it  exceedingly  impro- 
bable, that  the  Apostles  could  have  baptized  such  a  num- 
ber by  immersion  in  so  short  a  time.     Before  they  began 

*  See  Jahn's  Archaeol.  Sect.  335. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  185 

to  baptize,  all  the  other  business  mentioned  in  the  narra- 
tive had  been  accomplished.  The  Apostles  had  met  to- 
gether in  one  place.  The  Holy  Spirit  had  been  poured 
out  upon  them ;  so  that  they  declared  the  wonderful 
works  of  God  to  people  of  many  different  countries,  in 
their  own  languages.  The  powerful  effects  produced 
by  their  preaching  had  been  noticed.  Heavy  accusa- 
tions had  been  brought  against  them.  Peter  had  un- 
dertaken their  defence,  and  had  reasoned  with  them 
largely  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Multitudes  had  been 
pricked  in  their  hearts,  and  inquired,  what  they  shouldi 
do  to  be  saved.  Peter  had  taught  them  the  way  of  sal- 
vation. What  is  related,  Acts  2,  must  be  considered  as 
a  very  brief  outline  of  the  instruction  he  gave  them  ;  as 
appears  from  verse  40.  Now  all  tho.se  miraculous  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  all  those  discourses  of  the  Apos- 
tles to  people  of  many  different  countries ;  all  the  agita- 
tions and  differences  of  opinion  which  took  place  among 
such  a  multitude  ;  the  discourse  of  Peter  ;  the  convictions 
and  anxious  inquiries  of  three  thousand  souls,  with  the 
particular  instructions  given  them  in  regard  to  the  way 
of  salvation  and  the  duties  of  a  holy  life, — all  these  must 
have  occupied  a  considerable  portion  of  the  day.  It  was 
the  third  hour,  that  is,  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning,  when 
some  of  the  people,  after  having  seen  the  effects  produc- 
ed by  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  accused  the  Apostles  of 
being  unduly  excited  by  new  wine.  What  has  been 
mentioned  could  not  have  taken  place  in  less  than  half 
the  day  ;  and  they  certainly  could  not  have  had  more 
than  half  the  day  left  for  baptizing.  Indeed  I  can  hard- 
ly bring  myself  to  believe  that  they  devoted  half  the  day 
to  this  ritual  service.  But  let  it  be  supposed  that  they 
baptized  three  thousand  in  five  hours.     This  would  mak<- 


186  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

six  hundred  an  hour  ;  and  for  each  apostle,  fifty  an  hour. 
or  two  hundred  and  fifty  in  five  hours ;  that  is,  but  little 
short  of  one  a  minute  for  each  Apostle,  through  the 
whole  of  that  time.  According  to  this  calculation,  who 
can  suppose  they  were  baptized  by  immersion,  without 
supposing  at  the  same  time,  that  God  worked  wonders  in 
this,  as  in  other  occurrences  of  that  memorable  day,  and 
that  he  miraculously  multiplied  the  hours  and  minutes,  as 
he  had  on  another  occasion  multiplied  the  loaves  and 
fishes  ? 

In  reply  to  all  this,  it  may  be  said,  that  others  might 
help  the  apostles  in  baptizing.  I  allow  this  to  be  possi- 
ble.    But  what  proof  is  there  of  the  fact  1 

There  are  two  places  in  the  Epistles,  which  contain 
allusions  to  the  rite  of  Baptism,  and  which  have  been 
thought  by  some  to  prove  that  immersion  was  the  mode. 
Rom.  6:  3,  4.  Col.  2:  12.  In  these  texts,  believers  are 
said  to  be  buried  ivith  Christ  in,  or  by  Baptism.  I  re- 
mark, first,  that  the  language  is  figurative.  In  this  all 
are  agreed.  Secondly  :  The  word,  avvttuyrififv,  we  were 
buried,  does  not  appertain  to  living  men,  but  to  dead  men  ; 
not  to  water s  but  to  earth.  It  does  not  mean,  we  were 
immersed,  or  plunged  in  water,  but,  as  dead  bodies,  we 
were  interred  or  covered  up  in  a.  grave,  or  laid  in  a  tomb. 
"The  Greek  word,  avi'8Tuqr]/.i6v,  we  were  buried  with  him, 
cannot  mean  water  baptism  ;  for  in  what  part  of  the  Bible 
is  being  washed  or  bathed  in  water,  an  emblem  of  death 
or  interment  ?  In  the  Jewish  ceremonies,  it  is  always  an 
emblem  of  purification,  not  of  death.  The  Baptists  great- 
ly mistake  the  force  of  this  text."*  The  figure  of  speech 
is  the  same,  as  in  the  expressions  used  in  connexion  with 
this,  in  which  Christians  are  said  to  be  crucified  and  dead. 

*  A  Manuscript  Note  of  Professor  Stuart. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  187 

It  designates  their  character.  They  are  crucified  to  the 
world ;  dead  to  sin ;  yea,  dead  and  buried.  Now  this 
mortified  temper  of  Christians,  and  their  conformity  with 
Christ,  is  signified  by  Baptisrn  ;  and  equally  so,  what- 
ever may  be  the  mode  of  Baptism.  According  to  the 
representation  of  the  Apostle  in  the  context,  it  is  as  true 
that  believers  are  crucified  with  Christ  and  dead  with 
Christ  in  Baptism,  as  that  they  are  buried  with  him  in 
Baptism.  And  how  does  it  appear  from  the  language 
employed  in  these  passages,  that  Baptism  has  any  more 
resemblance  to  Christ's  burial,  than  to  his  crucifixion  and 
death  ? 

In  Gal.  3:  27,  the  Apostle  says ;  "  As  many  of  you  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." 
Here  the  metaphor  is  taken  from  the  putting  on  of  clothes. 
Believers  have  put  on  Christ ;  have  assumed  his  charac- 
ter ;  have  invested,  or  clothed  themselves  with  his  moral 
excellence,  as  one  covers  himself  with  a  garment.  And 
this  is  signified  by  their  being  baptized  into  Christ.  But 
who  would  ever  think  of  inferring  from  this,  that  the  mode 
of  Baptism  must  have  a  resemblance  to  putting  on  clothes  1 
And  yet  this  would  be  just  as  proper  as  to  argue  from  the 
other  passages,  that,  the  mode  of  Baptism  must  have  a 
resemblance  to  Christ's  burial. 

After  all,  what  resemblance  is  there  between  a  man's 
being  dipped  or  plunged  in  water,  and  Christ's  being  laid 
in  a  sepulchre  which  was  hewn  out  of  a  rock  1 

The  common  manner  of  burial  among  us  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  Christ  was  buried,  and  may 
have  been  the  occasion  of  misleading  the  judgement  of 
common  readers.  There  are  still  remaining  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Jerusalem  many  ancient  tombs,  which  clear- 
ly show  the  manner  of  interment  formerly  practised.     A 


188  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

chamber  or  excavation  was  made  in  a  rock,  and  at  the 
sides  niches  were  formed  for  the  reception  of  dead  bodies. 
The  body  of  Jesus  was  wrapped  in  linen  and  laid  in  one 
of  these  niches.  Now  what  resemblance  is  there  between 
a  body's  being  carried, — not  let  down  as  into  a  grave,  but 
carried  into  such  a  chamber  or  excavation  in  a  rock  and 
lying  there  three  days  in  one  of  the  niches  at  the  side, 
and  the  plunging  of  a  living  person  for  a  moment  in  wa- 
ter 1  If  there  is  any  resemblance,  is  it  not  too  remote 
and  fanciful  to  be  regarded  by  an  Apostle  1 

Let  me  just  remark  in  addition,  that  if  circumcision 
had  been  continued,  as  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation ;  it  would  have  been  just  as 
proper,  as  it  is  now,  for  the  Apostle  to  make  use  of  the 
metaphors  found  in  the  passages  above  quoted,  and  to 
say,  that  Christians  are  crucified  with  Christ,  dead  with 
Christ,  and  buried  with  Christ  in  or  by  circumcision ;  as 
this,  according  to  the  supposition,  would  have  been  the 
appointed  sign  of  their  being  thus  crucified,  dead  and  bu- 
ried in  a  spiritual  sense. 

The  obvious  design  of  the  Apostle"  is  to  illustrate  the 
character  and  obligations  of  believers  from  the  circum- 
stance, that  they  are,  in  a  certain  respect,  conformed  to 
Christ's  death ;  that  as  he  died  for  sin  ;  so  they  are  dead, 
or  are  under  obligation  to  be  dead  to  sin  ;  that  is,  they 
are  holy,  or  are  by  their  profession  obliged  to  be  holy. 
"  So  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  death.'1  And  this  is  explained  by  what 
follows.  "  In  that  Christ  died,  he  died  unto  sin  (or  on 
account  of  sin,)  once  ;  but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  un- 
to God.  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead 
indeed  unto  sin,  (or  in  respect  to  sin,)  but  alive  unto  God 
through  Jesus  Christ"     This  is  what   was  signified   by 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  189 

haptism.  And  so  believers  were  baptized  into  Christ's 
death ;  not  that  baptism  was  a  symbol  of  death,  or  the 
state  of  the  dead  ;  for  water  or  washing  in  water  never 
was  a  symbol  of  this.  But  water,  used  in  ceremonial  ab- 
lutions, whether  by  washing  or  sprinkling,  and  after- 
wards in  Christian  baptism,  always  signified  the  fact,  or 
the  acknowledged  necessity,  of  purification.  Now  being 
dead,  or  in  a  state  of  death  as  to  sin,  is  the  same  thing 
as  to  be  spiritually  purified,  or  made  holy.  And  this  is 
the  very  thing  that  Baptism,  coming  in  the  place  of  ab- 
lutions under  the  former  economy,  is  exactly  adapted  to 
signify.  Or  to  say  all  in  a  word  :  water  used  in  Bap- 
tism is  a  sign  of  that  moral  purification  of  believers, 
which  the  Apostle  means  to  express  by  their  being  "  cru- 
cified," and  "  dead,"  and  conformed  to  Christ's  "death." 
Their  being  dead  in  conformity  with  Christ,  is  the  ex- 
pression which  contains  the  metaphor.  And  Baptism,  as 
an  appointed  token,  or  symbol,  denotes  what  is  signified 
by  the  metaphor,  not  the  metaphor  itself. 

The  argument  which  has  been  derived  from  this  pas- 
sage in  favor  of  immersion  is  founded  on  the  supposition 
of  a  real  resemblance  between  Baptism  and  death.  But 
this  supposition  is  very  unnatural,  and  I  think  far  differ- 
ent from  what  the  Apostle  had  in  view. 

What  has  been  said  above  as  to  the  obligation  impli- 
ed in  Baptism,  may  be  confirmed  by  1  Cor.  10:  2.  The 
Apostle  says,  the  Israelites  "  were  all  baptized  unto  Mo- 
ses in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Baptism,  as  a  relig- 
ious rite,  was  not  then  instituted.  But  the  Apostle,  know- 
ing the  special  obligation  implied  in  Baptism,  makes  use 
of  the  word,  to  set  forth  the  obligation  of  the  children  of 
Israel.  "  They  were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea."  That  is,  in  consequence  of  God's  mer- 
17 


190  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

cy  towards  them,  especially  at  ^he  Red  Sea,  they  came 
under  special  obligations  to  obey  Moses,  the  servant  of 
God,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  to  obey  the  commands 
of  God  by  Moses.  Their  being  baptized  does  not  surely 
imply  that  they  were  immersed  or  plunged  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea;  (which  was  not  the  fact;  for  they  went 
through  on  dry  ground ;)  but  it  implies,  that  they  were 
there  brought  under  special  obligations  to  worship  and 
obey  their  gracious  Deliverer.  Baptism  is  here  spoken  of, 
in  regard  to  its  spiritual  import,  just  as  I  understand  it  to 
be  in  the  passages  above  quoted  from  Rom.  and  Col. 

As  to  1  Pet.  3:  21,  I  shall  stop  to  make  only  two 
concise  remarks.  First.  The  Apostle  here  expressly 
tells  us,  that  the  thing  he  had  in  his  mind,  when  he 
spoke  of  Baptism,  was  not  an  outward,  but  an  inward, 
spiritual  washing.  Second.  The  condition  of  Noah 
and  his  family  in  the  ark  was  by  no  means  the  condition 
of  persons  buried  or  immersed  in  water.  This  was  the 
condition  of  the  ungodly  world.  It  was  from  this  condi- 
tion, as  the  Apostle  tells  us,  that  those  in  the  ark  were 
saved.  And  this  preservation  from  the  ruin  of  the  ungod- 
ly world  he  refers  to,  as  illustrating  the  salvation  of  Chris- 
tians, who  have  that  inward  purification,  that  "  ansioer  of 
a  good  conscience  towards  God,"  which  he  tells  us  is 
what  he  meant  by  Baptism. 

The  mistake  into  which  some  Pedobaptist  as  well  as 
Baptist  writers  have  been  betrayed,  in  regard  to  several 
of  the  passages  which  speak  of  Baptism,  particularly  those 
in  Rom.  vi,  and  Col.  n,  has,  in  my  apprehension,  been 
owing  to  their  not  attending,  with  sufficient  care,  to  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  metaphorical  language  there 
used.* 

*  See  Appendix  E. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  191 

I  have  now  given  you  the  result  of  my  inquiries  on 
the  mode  of  Baptism,  so  far  as  it  can  be  determined  from 
the  Christian  Scriptures.  My  conclusion  is,  that  the 
manner  in  which  the  inspired  writers  have  treated  the 
subject,  tends  to  show,  that  the  particular  mode  is  not  to 
be  deemed  of  any  material  consequence ;  that  God  would 
have  it  conform  to  circumstances  ;  and  that  he  will  be 
well  pleased  with  Baptism,  in  every  decent  mode,  if  it  be 
performed  with  a  cordial  desire  to  do  his  will. 

But  there  is  one  additional  remark  which  I  must  beg 
leave  to  introduce  in  this  place. 

In  the  foregoing  discussion  of  the  mode  of  Baptism,  I 
have  not  thought  it  proper  to  suggest  any  particular  rea- 
son for  preferring  sprinkling  to  immersion.  But  if  we 
look  at  the  ancient  manner  of  purification  established  by 
the  authority  of  God,  we  may  perhaps  find  such  a  reason. 
It  is  evident  that  lustrations,  or  purifications,  under  the 
Levitical  law,  were  commonly  performed  by  sprinkling , 
not  by  immersion.  See  Num.  19:  18 — 21.  Heb.  9:  13, 19. 
And  there  are  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New 
various  allusions  to  sprinkling  as  the  prevailing  mode  of 
ceremonial  purification,  as  Ezek.  86:  25 :  "  Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean." 
Is.  53:  15.     "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations." 

Now  how  can  a  mode  of  Baptism,  which  has  such  a 
resemblance  to  the  ancient  mode  of  purification,  be  other- 
wise than  very  significant  ?  The  early  Christian  Jews 
associated  the  idea  of  the  Passover  with  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. The  sacramental  bread  and  wine  were  symbols  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  whom  they  considered  as 
the  Paschal  Lamb.  1  Cor.  5:  7.  In  like  manner,  the 
mode  of  Baptism  which  we  commonly  use,  may  have  a 
happy  effect  by  being  associated  in  our  reflections  with 


192  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  prevailing  mode  of  purification  under  the  former  econ- 
omy, and  especially  by  impressing  our  minds  with  that 
inward  purification,  that  cleansing  from  sin,  which  is  ef- 
fected by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  do  not  pre- 
sent this  view  of  the  subject  in  the  way  of  controversy 
with  our  Baptist  brethren  ;  but  merely  to  show,  that  the 
mode  of  Baptism  which  we  adopt  has  a  striking  signifi- 
cancy,  and  that  in  regard  to  moral  effect,  which  really 
constitutes  the  whole  value  of  the  rite,  this  mode  will 
bear  comparison  with  any  other. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  undertake  to  prove  from  Eccle- 
siastical History,  that  immersion  was  the  prevailing  mode 
of  Baptism  in  the  ages  following  the  Apostles.  I  ac- 
knowledge that  Ecclesiastical  History  clearly  proves  this. 
And  I  am  very  willing  to  acknowledge  also,  that  immer- 
sion might  be  one  of  the  modes  of  Baptism,  and  perhaps 
the  prevailing  one,  used  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles,  and  that  the  Christians  in  the  following  ages 
probably  derived  it  from  them.  This  is  acknowledging 
quite  as  much  as  can  be  fairly  proved. 

In  regard  to  this  argument  from  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, I  remark,  first,  that  it  is  the  only  clear  and  certain 
proof  in  favor  of  immersion,  as  the  mode  of  Christian  Bap- 
tism. It  must  be  apparent,  that  no  such  proof  can  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures.  For  the  Scriptures  no  where 
declare,  as  the  Ecclesiastical  writers  do,  that  Baptism  was 
performed  by  immersion.  They  no  where  describe  the 
mode. 

Secondly.  Those  who  regard  the  testimony  of  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  baptizing 
by  immersion,  must,  to  be  consistent,  allow  the  same  tes- 
timony to  be  an  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  If 
they  reject  this  last  argument ;  they  onght  also  to  reject 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  193 

the  former ;  as  this  is  quite  as  clear  and   conclusive,  as 
that. 

I  proceed  now  to  my  second  general  proposition  ; 
which  is,  that  Christians  ought  not  to  consider  the  mode 
of  Baptism  of  any  essential  importance. 

We  are  all  in  danger  of  attaching  more  importance 
to  external  rites  and  forms,  than  really  belongs  to  them. 
The  people  of  God  were  exposed  to  this  danger  under 
the  former  dispensation ;  and  the  prophets  frequently 
warned  them  against  it,  and  told  them  plainly,  that  out- 
ward rites,  though  enjoined  by  divine  authority,  were  of 
little  consequence,  compared  with  spiritual  duties.  Christ 
often  found  it  necessary  to  guard  his  disciples  against 
the  same  danger,  and  to  teach  them  that  obedience  to  the 
moral  precepts  of  the  law  was  the  great  thing  required, 
and  that  outward  observances  were  comparatively  of  but 
little  consequence.  In  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  Chris- 
tians had  a  zeal  about  the  externals  of  religion,  which 
proved  a  great  hindrance  to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
the  church  ;  and  some  of  them  needed  to  be  told  by  St. 
Paul,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  consisted  not  in  meats  and 
drinks,  that  is,  in  external  observances,  but  in  righteous- 
ness, and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  am  well 
satisfied,  that  Christians  are  exposed  to  a  mistake  of  this 
kind  at  the  present  day  ;  and  exposed  in  a  high  degree, 
where  any  external  rite  or  form  is  made  the  subject  of 
controversy  and  strife.  In  such  a  case  the  disputed  rite 
is  likely  to  occupy  their  thoughts  too  frequently  ;  to  make 
a  deeper  impression  on  their  minds  than  other  subjects 
which  are  inconceivably  more  important ;  and  in  conse- 
quence of  this,  to  pervert  their  judgement,  to  misguide 
their  conscience,  and  to  excite  them  to  a  warmth  of  feeling 
and  effort,  which  exceeds  the  importance  of  the  subject,  and 
17* 


194  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

which  can  be  justified  only  when  directed  to  the  high  and 
spiritual  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom.  Against  such  a 
mistake,  and  such  excess,  especially  in  regard  to  the 
mode  of  Baptism,  I  would  earnestly  and  affectionately 
warn  the  followers  of  Christ. 

From  the  foregoing  examination,  I  think  it  must 
have  become  evident,  that  no  particular  mode  of  Baptism 
is  exactly  described  in  the  New  Testament,  and  repre- 
sented as  the  one  which  believers  are  required  to  use, 
exclusively  of  all  others.  I  would  not  allow  myself  to 
speak  with  unbecoming  confidence  on  such  a  subject. 
But  I  confess  I  am  unable  to  find  a  single  text,  which, 
according  to  just  rules  of  interpretation,  clearly  proves, 
that  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  by  immersion,  or  in 
any  one  particular  way,  exclusively  of  every  other  way. 
And  the  conclusion  which  I  draw  from  this  fact  is,  that 
if  we  contend  for  any  one  mode,  exclusively  of  every  oth- 
er, we  go  beyond  our  rule  :  we  attempt  to  do  what  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  left  undone  ;  and  what  they  left  undone, 
for  the  very  purpose  of  showing,  that  they  did  not  regard 
the  particular  form  of  the  rite  as  of  any  material  conse- 
quence, and  so  would  have  Christians  at  liberty  to  vary 
the  form,  as  circumstances  might  require. 

I  am  confirmed  in  this  view  of  the  subject  by  other 
considerations.  Christ  intended  that  his  people  should 
be  free  from  inconvenient  and  burdensome  rites,  and 
should  have  no  yoke  put  upon  them,  which  was  not  easy 
to  be  borne.  But  scarcely  any  thing  in  the  Mosaic  rit- 
ual was  so  inconvenient  and  burdensome,  as  Baptism 
would,  in  some  circumstances,  be,  if  it  could  be  adminis- 
tered in  no  way  but  by  immersion.  The  coldness  of 
some  climates,  and  of  some  seasons  of  the  year  in  more 
temperate  climates,  renders   it  almost  impracticable  to 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  195 

baptize  in  this  way.  Those  who  practise  immersion  find 
it,  in  some  cases,  exceedingly  inconvenient  and  difficult, 
and  submit  to  it  merely  because  they  think  God  requires 
it.  Now  I  have  serious  doubts  whether  all  this  is  con- 
sistent with  the  simplicity  and  spirituality  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  and  whether  the  unqualified  declaration  of 
Christ,  that  Ms  yoke  is  easy,  and  his  burden  light,  would 
lead  us  to  expect,  that  an  outward  rite  would  be  enjoined 
upon  all  Christians  in  such  a  form,  as  would  render  it  in 
many  cases  so  extremely  difficult  to  be  complied  with.  And 
I  have  still  stronger  doubts,  whether  it  is  consistent  with 
the  genius  of  Christianity  that  Baptism  by  immersion 
should  be  required  of  all  believers,  when  I  consider  that 
the  thing  required  must,  in  some  places,  be  rendered  not 
only  difficult  but  impossible,  for  want  of  water,  and,  in 
various  instances,  must  necessarily  be  given  up,  on  ac- 
count of  long  continued  bodily  infirmity. 

The  Christian  religion  was  designed  to  be  a  universal 
religion,  and  its  external  rites,  as  well  as  its  spiritual  pre- 
cepts, were  unquestionably  adapted  to  this  design.  But 
the  rites  of  Christianity,  in  order  to  be  adapted  to  the  de- 
sign of  making  it  a  universal  religion,  must  be  such  as 
to  be  capable  of  being  varied  in  outward  form,  as  cir- 
cumstances in  different  parts  of  the  world  may  require, 
while  the  substance  of  them  shall,  under  all  external  va- 
riations, be  preserved,  and  the  ends  of  them  secured. 
An  absolute,  unvarying  uniformity  in  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministering either  Baptism,  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  in 
the  mode  of  performing  public  worship,  would  operate  as 
a  great  hindrance  to  the  spread  of  the  Gospel.  As  to 
public  worship,  we  never  think  of  such  uniformity,  but 
vary,  in  regard  to  external  forms,  just  as  the  ends  of  pub- 
lic worship  seem  to  require.     And  we   feel  that  we  have 


196  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  same  liberty  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  As  to 
the  exterior  of  this  solemn  rite,  we  depart  indefinitely 
from  the  original  pattern. 

I  have  often  thought  it  strange  that  Christians  of  the 
Baptist  denomination  should  feel  themselves  authorized  to 
take  such  liberties  as  they  do,  respecting  the  manner  of 
observing  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  while  they  plead  for 
so  strict  a  conformity  to  what  they  conceive  to  have  been 
the  original  mode  of  Baptism.  Why  are  they  not  as  much 
bound  to  a  strict  conformity  in  regard  to  one  ordinance, 
as  in  regard  to  the  other  ?  But  do  they  practise  such  con- 
formity as  to  the  eucharist  ?  Do  they  practise  it  in 
respect  to  the  time  ?  They  do  indeed  observe  this 
ordinance  near  the  close  of  the  day,  so  that  it  may 
seem  to  be  a  supper.  But  after  all,  there  is  no  real  con- 
formity, because  Christ  kept  the  Sacramental  Supper  with 
his  disciples  in  the  night ;  that  is,  after  it  was  dark.  The 
Baptists  say,  they  conform  in  this  respect  as  far  as  they 
can  consistently  with  convenience.  And  what  they  say 
is  well.  But  do  they  not  perceive  that  the  plea  of  con- 
venience is  as  good  in  regard  to  one  ordinance,  as  in  re- 
gard to  the  other  ?  They  fail  of  this  conformity  in  regard 
to  the  place.  Christ  and  his  apostles  kept  the  Sacramen- 
tal Supper  in  an  upper  chamber.  But  who  at  the  pre- 
sent day  thinks  it  necessary  to  conform  in  this  respect  ? 
Neither  do  the  Baptists  conform  in  regard  to  their  pos- 
ture, while  attending  the  ordinance.  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles reclined  at  the  table  on  a  couch,  or  sofa.  And  why 
do  not  the  Baptists  imitate  them  in  this  respect  ?  Be- 
cause, at  the  present  day,  it  would  not  be  agreeable  to 
common  usage,  and  so  it  would  not  be  suitable  or  decent. 
And  doubtless  this  plea  of  suitableness  and  decency  may 
be  very  justly  made.  And  why  not  as  justly  in  regard  to 
Baptism,  as  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ?     Neither  do 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  197 

the  Baptists  conform  as  to  the  kind  of  bread  which  is 
used  in  the  ordinance.  The  bread  which  Christ  brake 
and  gave  to  his  disciples,  was  unleavened.  And  why  do 
not  the  Baptists  use  unleavened  bread  1  Because  they 
do  not  think  an  exact  conformity  in  this  respect  is  either 
necessary  or  important.  Neither  do  they  conform  as  to 
the  kind  of  wine  which  is  used.  What  Christ  and  his 
disciples  used  was  the  pure  juice  of  the  grape.  And  why 
do  not  the  Baptists  conform  to  Christ's  example  in  this 
respect  ?  Because  it  is  difficult  to  procure  such  wine 
(though  it  is  not  impossible).  Now  the  Baptists  take 
the  liberty,  and  I  doubt  not  very  properly,  to  vary  from 
the  mode  of  the  original  institution  and  from  the  example 
of  Christ,  in  all  these  respects.  And  yet,  it  would  seem, 
he  did  more  to  enjoin  an  exact  conformity  in  regard  to 
this  ordinance,  than  in  regard  to  Baptism.  For  he  said 
expressly  :  "  This  do  ye  in  remembrance  of  me ;"  that 
is,  eat  this  bread,  (unleavened  bread,)  and  drink  this 
wine,  (the  pure  juice  of  the  grape,)  in  remembrance  of 
me.  Moreover,  it  is  not  only  true  that  Baptist  Christians 
vary  from  the  mode  of  the  original  institution  in  regard  to 
the  kind  of  bread  and  wine  which  is  used  ;  but  that  they 
would  vary  still  more,  if  circumstances  should  require. 
For  if  any  of  them  should  live  in  a  place  where  neither 
bread  nor  wine  of  any  kind  could  be  had ;  they  would 
undoubtedly  consider  it  proper,  and  perfectly  according 
to  the  design  of  the  institution,  to  make  use  of  other  ar- 
ticles of  food  and  drink  in  their  stead.  All  this  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  believe,  as  we  do,  to  be  according  to  the 
will  of  our  condescending  and  merciful  Saviour,  and  to 
the  spirit  of  his  religion.  And  why  should  they  not  judge 
and  act  on  the  same  principles  in  regard  to  the  other 
Christian  rite  1     What  reason  can  they  have  for  consid- 


198  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ering  an  exact  adherence  to  one  invariable  form,  (even  if 
they  could  prove  that  to  have  been  the  original  form,) 
more  necessary  in  Baptism,  than  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
What  reason  for  this,  especially,  when  there  is  less  evi- 
dence in  the  New  Testament  of  the  particular  mode  in 
which  Baptism  was  administered,  than  of  the  particular 
mode  in  which  the  Lord's  Supper  was  administered  ? 

I  shall  just  refer  to  another  subject,  on  which  our 
Baptist  brethren  agree  with  us,  and  which,  in  my  view, 
they  treat  according  to  the  will  of  Christ.  After  he  had, 
with  the  most  condescending,  amiable  kindness,  washed 
the  feet  of  his  disciples,  he  commanded  them  to  wash  one 
another's  feet.  This  command  of  Christ  was  as  express, 
and  for  aught  that  appears  in  the  form  of  the  command 
itself,  as  much  intended  for  all  his  followers,  as  the  com- 
mand to  baptize,  or  to  eat  the  Sacramental  Supper.  And 
yet  the  Baptists,  as  well  as  we,  dispense  with  a  literal  ob- 
servance of  it,  and  content  themselves  with  obeying  it 
virtually ;  that  is,  with  performing  acts  of  condescension 
and  brotherly  kindness.  And  to  justify  themselves  in 
this,  they  plead  that  present  usages  are  different  from 
what  they  were  when  the  command  was  given  ;  that  what 
was  then  an  act  of  kindness  would  not  be  so  now  ;  that  it 
cannot  be  supposed  that  our  Lord  and  Master  would  have 
us  violate  the  common  customs  and  civilities  of  social  in- 
tercourse, for  the  sake  of  conforming  to  the  letter  of  such 
a  precept ;  and  that  a  conformity  to  the  spirit  of  it,  in  do- 
ing acts  of  condescension  and  love,  must  be  more  accept- 
able to  him,  and  more  beneficial  to  our  brethren. 

Of  the  propriety  of  treating  the  command  of  Christ 
referred  to,  as  the  Baptists  do,  and  as  Christians  general- 
ly do,  I  am  fully  satisfied.  Their  taking  into  consider- 
ation, as  they  do,  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  in 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  199 

the  circumstances  and  usages  of  society,  and  their  exercis- 
ing judgement  and  discretion  in  putting  a  reasonable  con- 
struction on  the  command,  and  in  complying  with  the 
spirit  instead  of  the  letter  of  it,  I  believe  to  be  entirely 
agreeable  to  the  mind  of  Christ.  The  principles  on 
which  they  proceed  in  all  this  are  evidently  right.  And 
why  should  they  not  proceed  on  the  same  general  princi- 
ples as  to  Baptism  ?  Even  if  it  could  be  certainly  deter- 
mined that  Baptism  was  at  first  administered  by  immer- 
sion ;  might  not  a  regard  to  common  usage,  to  decency, 
or  to  convenience  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  varying  the 
mode  ?  Might  not  compassion  for  those  believers,  who 
are  in  a  state  of  infirmity,  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  ex- 
empting them  from  an  exposure,  which  they  cannot  bear, 
and  baptizing  them  in  a  manner  suited  to  their  circum- 
stances ?  And  why  should  not  the  Baptists  content  them- 
selves in  this  case  as  well  as  in  the  other,  with  conform- 
ing to  the  original  institution  virtually,  though  not  literal- 
ly and  exactly  ?  I  say  this,  even  on  the  supposition,  that 
immersion  was  evidently  the  form  of  Baptism  in  the  time 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  But  this  supposition  wants 
proof.  And  accordingly  the  reason  in  favor  of  conform- 
ing the  mode  of  Baptism  to  circumstances  is,  to  my  mind, 
strong  and  conclusive.  And  it  is  very  clear,  that  when 
the  Baptists  fix  upon  immersion  as  the  only  proper  mode, 
and  utterly  refuse  to  vary  from  this  in  any  circumstances  ; 
they  abandon  the  just  and  reasonable  principles  which 
they  adopt  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  in  regard 
to  his  command  to  wash  one  another's  feet ;  and  they 
debar  from  Baptism  many  Christians  who  are  qualified 
for  the  ordinance,  and  desirous  of  receiving  it. 

There  is  another  consideration  relative  to  the  subject 
before  us,  which  I  think  calculated  to  have  a  very  saluta- 


200  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ry  influence  on  our  minds.  The  consideration  is,  that 
God  equally  approves  of  sincere  Christians,  whether  they 
are  baptized  by  immersion,  or  by  sprinkling.  My  mean- 
ing is,  that  the  judgement  of  God  respecting  Christians 
depends  altogether  upon  their  real  internal  character ; 
and  that,  if  they  are  equally  holy,  they  are  equally  the  ob- 
jects of  his  approbation,  although  they  are  baptized  in 
different  ways.  Their  not  observing  an  external  rite  in 
the  same  manner  can  be  of  no  account  with  God. — In 
the  midst  of  the  discussions  and  controversies,  in  which 
we  may  at  any  time  be  engaged  respecting  outward  rites 
and  forms,  let  us  charge  ourselves  to  remember  this. 

That  God  does  in  fact  regard  Christians,  who  are 
baptized  in  different  ways,  with  equal  approbation,  might 
be  made  evident  from  the  representations  of  his  word, 
and  from  his  actual  administration.  But  formal  proof 
cannot  be  necessary.  Those  who  are  familiar  with  the 
Scriptures  have  learnt,  that  God  judges  of  men  in  the 
manner  I  have  described.  And  we  cannot  fail  to  receive 
the  same  impression  from  what  is  manifest  in  his  admin- 
istration. I  am  happy  to  acknowledge  those,  who  prefer 
immersion  as  the  mode  of  Baptism,  to  be  sincere  friends 
to  Christ. ;  and  I  would  not  cease  to  rejoice  in  all  the  to- 
kens of  the  divine  favor  which  they  receive.  But  do  not 
those  Christians,  who  use  sprinkling  or  affusion,  receive 
as  many  tokens  of  divine  favor  1  Does  not  God  give 
them  as  high  a  degree  of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spir- 
it ?  And  in  consequence  of  this,  do  they  not  exhibit  as 
high  a  degree  of  sanctification  ?  Have  they  not  as  ar- 
dent love  to  the  Saviour,  and  as  much  zeal  for  the  pro- 
motion of  his  cause  ?  Do  they  not  labor  as  diligently 
and  pray  as  fervently  for  the  salvation  of  the  world  ? 
Are  not  their  labors  as  successful  ?     And  do  not  their 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  201 

prayers  meet  with  as  much  acceptance,  and  obtain  as 
many  gracious  answers  1  Do  they  not  as  sensibly  enjoy 
the  presence  of  God  in  the  special  ordinances  of  the  Gos- 
pel, in  seasons  of  affliction,  and  in  the  hour  of  death? 
Will  not  as  welcome  and  joyful  an  entrance  be  minister- 
ed to  them  into  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  their  Saviour  ? 
And  will  they  not  enjoy  as  high  a  degree  of  blessedness 
in  heaven  ?  Now  if  it  is  indeed  so,  that  God  grants  to 
those,  who  believe  sprinkling  or  affusion  to  be  a  proper 
mode  of  Baptism,  as  many  tokens  of  his  approbation  and 
love,  as  to  those  who  prefer  immersion ;  is  not  the  con- 
clusion perfectly  obvious,  that  God  does  not  consider  the 
particular  form  of  Baptism  to  be  of  any  essential  conse- 
quence as  to  the  great  interests  of  religion  ?  It  clearly 
follows  then,  that  we  ought  to  love  the  followers  of  Christ 
who  baptize  in  one  way,  as  much  as  those,  who  baptize 
in  another  way  ;  and  that  if  we  consider  the  form  of  this 
rite  as  of  any  essential  consequence,  or  suffer  it  to  have 
any  great  influence  upon  our  feelings,  we  commit  a  la- 
mentable mistake,  and,  in  regard  to  this  point,  place  our- 
selves in  opposition  to  the  mind  of  God.  And  how  deep* 
•ly  is  it  to  be  deplored,  that  any  Christians  should,  through 
weakness  or  imperfection,  cherish  views  and  feelings, 
Avhich  are  at  variance  with  the  divine  will,  and  the  divine 
administration ! 

And  here,  as  I  am  about  to  take  my  leave  of  this  sub- 
ject, I  must  solicit  the  candid  indulgence  of  those  who 
differ  from  me,  and  also  those  who  agree  with  me  in  re- 
gard to  the  mode  of  Baptism,  while  I  allow  myself  in 
great  plainness  of  speech,  and  utter  my  thoughts  serious- 
ly and  unreservedly,  as  in  the  presence  of  him  who  is  the 
Saviour  and  Judge  of  the  world. 

We  must  all,  I  think,  be  satisfied,  that  our  relation 
18 


202 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


to  Christians  generally,  I  mean  to  those  who  are  real 
friends  to  Christ,  is  unspeakably  more  important,  than  our 
relation  to  any  particular  religious  denomination,  or  par- 
ty. Our  relation  to  Christians  generally  respects  them  as 
Christians,  as  those  who  belong  to  Christ's  spiritual  fami- 
ly and  bear  his  image.  But  the  particular  relation  we 
sustain  to  those  of  our  own  denomination  or  party  re- 
spects them  in  a  very  inferior  point  of  light.  For  their 
belonging  to  our  party  is  clearly  a  matter  of  infinitely  less 
importance,  than  their  belonging  to  the  holy  kingdom  of 
Christ.  But  do  we  always  regard  the  subject  in  this 
light  ?  Are  we  not  liable  to  make  more  of  the  particular 
relation  which  men  sustain  to  us  and  to  our  party,  than  of 
that  high,  that  paramount  relation,  which  all  real  Chris- 
tians sustain  to  God  and  his  kingdom  ? 

Again.  We  must  all  be  satisfied,  that  the  salvation 
of  sinners,  and  the  spiritual  prosperity  of  Christ's  king- 
dom, together  with  our  own  sanctification  and  eternal 
life,  should  be  to  us  the  great  objects  of  desire  and  pur- 
suit ;  that  no  other  objects  should  be  suffered  to  come  in- 
to competition  with  these ;  and  that  we  should  do  noth- 
ing, and  countenance  nothing,  which  can  in  any  way  in- 
terfere with  them.  But  have  these  great,  spiritual  inter- 
ests been  always  kept  uppermost  in  our  minds  ?  Have 
they  not  sometimes  been  almost  forgotten  ?  And  have 
they  not  too  frequently  been  made  subordinate  to  local 
or  sectarian  interests  ?  I  have  heard  of  Christians,  and 
of  Gospel  ministers,  who  have  made  the  mode  of  Baptism 
their  grand,  engrossing  subject.  I  have  heard  of  those, 
who  have  been  actuated  by  such  an  intense  zeal  in  favor 
of  one  particular  form  of  this  external  rite,  that  they  have 
seemed  almost  inclined  to  make  it  the  sum  of  all  religion. 
Even  in  those  auspicious  seasons,  when  God  is  pleased  in 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  20$ 

mercy  to  pour  out  his  Spirit,  and  produce  in  the  minds 
of  multitudes  a  deep  and  overwhelming  impression  of  the 
evil  of  sin,  and  the  value  of  eternal  salvation  ;  there  are 
some  Christians,  and  some  teachers  of  religion,   (I  hope 
the  number  will  be  found  small,)  who  show  an  unaccoun- 
table forwardness  to  introduce  discussions  respecting  the 
mode  of  Baptism  ;  and,  instead  of  striving  with   all  their 
hearts,  to  bring  sinners  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and 
to  promote  the  holiness  of  believers,  make  it  a  favorite  ob- 
ject to  convince  them,  that  Baptism  should  not  be  admin- 
istered by  sprinkling,  but  by  immersion.    I  must  say  too  that 
I  have  known  those  who,  in  similar  circumstances,  have 
shown  an  unbecoming  forwardness  and  warmth  in  opposing 
and  decrying  the  peculiar  tenets  of  the  Baptists,  and  in  estab- 
lishing those  of  their  own  party.     Now  it  is  well   known, 
that  discussions  of  this  kind,  whether  on  one  side  or  the 
other,  have  a  oirect  tendency  to  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  to  divert  the  attention  of  saints  and  sinners  from  the 
one  thing  needful.     The  introduction  of  such  a  subject, 
in  the  way  of  controversy,  especially  in  a  revival  of  relig- 
ion, I  am  sure  is  wrong.     It  is  offensive  to  God,  and   will 
be  followed,  as  it  often  has  been,  by  the  withdrawment  of 
his  gracious  influence.     And  I   would  earnestly  beseech 
any  ministers  or  Christians,  who  are  inclined  to  such  a 
course  as  that  to  which  I  have   now  referred,  to  pause  a 
few  moments,  and  seriously  to  inquire,  whether  they  are 
pursuing  the  great  object,  for  which  Jesus  died  on  the 
cross,  and  for  which  he  has  given  us  the  Gospel,  and  the 
day  of  salvation ;  whether  they  are  not  in  danger  of  sub- 
stituting an  excessive  zeal  for  an  outward  rite,  or  rather, 
the  form  of  such  a  rite,   in  the  place  of  pure  love  to 
Christ,  and  to  the  immortal  souls  of  men ;  and  whether 
they  have  any  reason  to  think,  that  a  subject  of  this  kind 


204  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

will  appear  as  important  to  them  at  the  Judgement  day, 
as  it  does  now.  My  Christian  brethren,  with  whom  I 
am  expostulating,  expect  to  dwell  eternally  in  heaven 
with  an  innumerable  multitude  of  God's  people,  who  dif- 
fer from  them  as  to  the  mode  of  administering  Baptism. 
And  I  am  very  sure,  that  "  the  general  assembly  and 
church  of  the  first  born,  who  are  written  in  heaven,"  and 
the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,"  will  not  be  divided 
into  different  and  contending  parties,  on  account  of  their 
having  received  Baptism  in  different  ways.  The  pre- 
sence of  their  Saviour,  and  their  glowing,  perfect  love  to 
him,  will  make  them  all  one.  And  any  strife,  or  preju- 
dice, or  coldness,  existing  among  them  in  this  world,  will 
either  be  buried  in  a  happy  oblivion,  or  will  be  remem- 
bered with  grief,  (if  grief  can  be  found  in  that  happy 
world,)  and  with  emotions  of  gratitude  for  that  infinite 
grace,  which  has  delivered  them  from  the  weakness  and 
imperfection  of  their  earthly  state,  and  prepared  them  for 
the  holy  employments  and  pleasures  of  heaven. 

With  these  few  suggestions  I  dismiss  a  subject,  which 
it  was  no  pleasure  to  me  to  introduce.  But  there  are  oth- 
er subjects,  relating  to  the  present  and  future  happiness 
of  all  the  children  of  God,  on  which  I  should  love  to  en- 
large. If  we  are  real  Christians,  we  are  entitled  to  an 
inheritance  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that  fadetli  not 
away.  Christ  is  even  now  the  portion  of  our  souls  ;  and 
we  shall  shortly  be  with  him  where  he  is.  Having  this 
hope  in  us,  let  us  purify  ourselves,  as  Christ  is  pure. 
Let  us  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight.  As  to  the  general  in- 
terests of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  as  to  the  particular  inter- 
ests of  our  own  denomination  ;  as  to  the  substance  of  re- 
ligion, and  as  to  its  outward  forms,  let  us  endeavour  to 
judge  and  feel  as  Christ  does, — and  as  we  ourselves  shall. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  205 

when  the  shadows  of  time  shall  vanish,  and  we  shall  ar- 
rive at  a  world  of  perfect  light.  There  all  the  redeemed, 
— delightful  thought ! — all  the  redeemed,  forgetting  every 
distinction  of  name  or  sect,  will  unite  their  joyful  hearts 
and  voices  in  praise  to  him  who  loved  them,  and  washed 
them  from  their  sins  in  his  own  blood.  Let  us  do  all  in 
our  power  to  prepare  ourselves  and  others  for  that  bless- 
ed world,  and  to  render  the  society  of  the  redeemed  on 
earth  like  what  it  will  be  in  heaven.  Henceforth  we  will 
have  no  strife,  but  to  copy  the  love  and  meekness  and 
forbearance  of  the  blessed  Jesus,  and  to  advance  his 
cause.  We  will  heartily  rejoice  in  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  among  Christians  of  every  description,  and  guard 
with  the  most  sacred  care  against  every  thing  which 
would  hinder  its  progress.  We  will  suffer  no  zeal  for 
any  personal  object,  or  for  the  interest  of  any  one  sect, 
to  take  place  of  that  holier  zeal  which  we  ought  to  cher- 
ish, for  the  glory  of  our  common  Lord,  and  the  prosperity 
of  his  universal  empire.  If  we  may  but  have  the  joy  to 
see  him  inherit  all  nations,  our  souls  shall  be  satisfied. 
We  will  not  cease  to  love  thee,  and  to  pray  for  thy  peace, 
O  kingdom  of  Christ.  If  we  forget  thee,  let  our  right 
hand  forget  her  cunning.  If  we  do  not  remember  thee, 
let  our  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  our  mouth. 


18* 


APPENDIX 


A. 


I  am  happy  in  being  able  to  give  some  extracts  from  a  Disser- 
tation on  Infant  Baptism  by  R.  Wardlaw,  n.  d.  of  Glasgow  ;  a  very 
valuable  work,  which  I  have  just  received  from  the  Author. 

The  following  remarks  on  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  are 
from  the  second  edition  of  the  Dissertation,  p.  138 — 140. 

"The  circumstances  of  the  early  history  of  the  church,  after 
the  apostolic  age ,  are  unaccountable  on  antipaedobaptist  principles. 

"The  advocates  of  these  principles  allege,  that  the  first  writer  by 
whom  infant-baptism  is  expressly  mentioned,  is  Tertullian,  who 
lived  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  a  hundred  years  and 
more  after  the  apostolic  age  : — and  he,  says  Mr.  Cox,"  '  in  fact 
condemns  it !'  Emphasis  is  thus  laid  on  the  peculiar  opinion  of 
this  father.  But  the  question  before  us  is  not  one  of  opinion,  but 
of  fact.  Tertullian  was  remarkable  for  singular  and  extravagant 
©pinions.  '  He  was  endowed,'  says  Mosheim,  '  with  a  great  ge- 
nius, but  seemed  deficient  in  point  of  judgement.  His  piety  was 
warm  and  vigorous,  but,  at  the  same  time,  melancholy  and  austere. 
His  learning  was  extensive  and  profound ;  and  yet  his  credulity 
and  superstition  were  such  as  might  have  been  expected  from  the 
darkest  ignorance.  And  with  respect  to  his  reasonings,  they  had 
more  of  that  subtlety  that  dazzles  the  imagination,  than  of  that 
solidity  that  brings  light  and  conviction  to  the  mind.' — On  the 
particular  subject  before  us,  he  not  only  advised  the  delay  of  bap- 
tism in  the  case  of  infants,  but  also  of  unmarried  persons.  Will 
our  baptist  brethren  admit  the  inference  as  to  the  latter,  which 
they  draw  so  complacently  as  to  the  former  ?  The  truth  is,  that, 
as  to  both  the  legitimate  inference  is  the  very  contrary.  The  very 
advice  to  delay,  or,  if  you  will,  the  condemnation  of  baptism  in  in- 
fancy (though  these  two  are  far  from  being  the  same,  and  the  for- 
mer alone  properly  belongs  to  Tertullian)  is  a  conclusive  evidence 

*  A  Baptist  writer. 


208  APPENDIX  A. 

of  the  previous  existence  of  the  practice.  This  is  the  point.  The 
opinion  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  It  has  no  authority.  If  our 
baptist  friends  think  it  has,  let  them  do  the  good  old  father  justice, 
and  follow  it  fully. — His  condemning  the  practice  of  baptizing  in- 
fants, so  far  from  being  in  their  favour,  militates  against  them.  It 
not  only  proves  its  previous  existence  ;  it  proves  more.  It  proves 
that  it  was  no  innovation.  When  a  man  condemns  a  practice,  he 
is  naturally  desirous  to  support  his  peculiar  views  by  the  strongest 
arguments.  Could  Tertullian,  therefore,  have  shown,  that  the 
practice  was  of  recent  origin  ;  that  it  had  been  introduced  in  his 
own  day,  or  even  at  any  time  subsequent  to  the  lives  of  the  apos- 
tles  ;  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  he  would  have  availed  him- 
self of  a  ground  so  obvious,  and  so  conclusive.  It  proves  still  fur- 
ther, that  the  baptism  of  infants  wras  the  general  practice  of  the 
church  in  Tertullian's  time.  His  opinion  is  his  own.  It  is  that  of 
a  dissentient  from  the  universal  body  of  professing  Christians.  He 
never  pretends  to  say,  that  any  part  of  the  church  had  held  or  act- 
ed upon  it.  Of  his  opinion  and  advice,  then,  we  may  say,  J'aJeant 
quantum  ralere  possunt.  But  the  total  absence  of  any  attempt,  to 
support  and  recommend  them,  by  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the 
church  in  apostolic  times,  or  of  any  part  of  the  church  at  any  in- 
tervening period  between  those  times  and  his  own,  certainly  goes 
far  to  prove  the  matter  of  fact,  with  which  alone  we  have  to  do, — 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  the  original  and  universal  practice." 

I  pray  my  Baptist  brethren  to  give  this  particular  point  a  fair 
examination. 

It  has  been  usual  for  their  ablest  writers,  to  consider  the  opin- 
ion and  advice  of  Tertullian  against  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  a 
proof  that  it  had  not  been  the  general  practice  of  the  Christian 
church.  But  did  not  Tertullian  give  his  opinion  equally,  and  for 
similar  reasons,  against  the  baptism  of  unmarried  persons?  And 
was  this  a  proof  that  it  had  not  been  the  practice  of  the  church  to 
give  baptism  to  such  ?  All  intelligent  Baptists  will  say,  that  Ter- 
tullian's opposition  to  the  baptism  of  unmarried  persons  presup* 
poses  that  their  baptism  had  been  common.  And  does  not  h:.s  op- 
position to  the  baptism  of  infante  equallj'  presuppose  that  their  bap- 
tism had  been  common  ?  How  can  we  believe  the  former,  and 
yet  deny  the  latter  ?  Or  if  we  should  do  this,  would  it  not  betray 
a  bi'i/  of  mind,  which  would  lead  us  entirely  to  overlook  or  evade 
any  arguments  opposed  to  our  belief? — I  would  endeavour  to  treat 


APPENDIX  B.  209 

those  who  differ  from  me  with  the  same  candor  and  kindness  which 
I  should  wish  them  to  exercise  towards  me. — But  really,  if  men 
will  evade  the  force  of  Tertullian's  testimony,  as  some  have  done, 
what  reason  is  there  to  suppose  that  their  opinion  would  have  heen 
at  all  different,  whatever  his  testimony  might  have  been, — even  if 
he  had  expressly  acknowledged  that  Infant  Baptism  was  univer- 
sally practised  in  his  day,  and  had  been  so  from  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  and  if  he  had  asserted  too  that  it  had  been  handed  down 
as  a  thing  ordered  by  the  apostles  ?  Could  they  not  yet  get  rid  cf 
such  a  testimony  from  Tertullian,  as  easily  as  from  Origen  and 
Aujjustine? 


B. 

"  Does  the  reader  marvel  that  infant  baptism  should  not  be 
spoken  of  more  frequently,  and  in  more  direct  and  explicit  terms, 
during  the  first  century  after  the  apostles  ?  Let  him  only  suppose 
the  uncontroverted  universality  of  the  practice  from  the  beginning, 
and  his  wonder  will  cease.  That  which  goes  on  as  the  under- 
stood and  established  usage,  it  is  quite  natural  to  expect,  should  be 
but  seldom  spoken  of,  and,  when  it  is,  only  in  the  way  of  indirect 
and  incidental  allusion.  Circumcision  is  never  alluded  to  for  more 
than  a  century  and  a  half  after  its  institution,  when  an  occurrence 
in  the  history,  the  violation  of  Jacob's  daughter,  the  proposal  of 
marriage  with  her  by  the  prince  of  Shechem,  and  the  artful  re- 
venge of  the  patriarch's  sons,  leads  to  the  incidental  mention  of  it; 
— and  from  that  time,  it  is  never  noticed  again  for  nearly  two  cen- 
turies and  a  half,  till  the  circumcision  of  the  younger  son  of  Moses 
by  his  mother  Zipporah. — The  case  is  similar,  during  the  first  cen- 
tury after  the  apostles,  with  regard  to  Infant  Baptism.  It  is  occa- 
sionally alluded  to,  in  terms,  on  which,  we  are  not  disposed  to  de- 
ny, an  adversary,  now  that  it  has  come  to  be  controverted,  may 
plausibly  put  another  construction  ;  and  the  first  that,  speaks  of  it 
in  plain  language,  and  by  its  proper  name,  is  the  first  that  ques- 
tions and  objects  to  it.  And  on  what  grounds  does  he  object  ? 
Not  that  the  practice  was  without  apostolic  authority; — not  that  it 
was  a  recent,  and  unscripturnl  innovation  ; — not  even  that  it  was 
only  partially  observed  in  the  church: — no;  he  never  hints  any 


210  APPENDIX  e. 

such  things  as  these.  His  objections  proceed,  chiefly,  on  a  super- 
stitious notion  he  had  come  to  attach  to  the  rite,  on  which  he 
founds  a  proposal  for  the  delay  of  its  administration  ;— a  proposal, 
including  not  merely  infants,  but  unmarried  persons,  and  having 
precisely  the  same  authority  as  to  both,— the  authority,  that  is,  of 
Tertullian's  fanciful  singularity." — fVardlaw's  Diss.  pp.  145,  146. 


C, 

"  Infant  Baptism  contains  a  constant  memorial  of  original  sin. 
— Of  the  corruption  of  our  nature  being  not  merely  contracted  but 
inherent.  And  this  doctrine  of  original  corruption,  of  wnich  Infant 
Baptism  is  a  standing  practical  recognition,  is  one  of  fundamental 
importance  ;  one,  I  am  satisfied,  to  inadequate  conceptions  and 
impressions  of  which  may  be  traced  all  the  principal  perversions  of 
the  gospel.  In  proportion  to  its  relative  importance  in  the  sys- 
tem of  Divine  truth,  is  it  of  consequence  that  it  should  not  be  al- 
lowed to  slip  out  of  mind.  The  baptism  of  every  child  brings  it  to 
view,  and  impresses  it.  If  in  any  case  it  should  be  otherwise,  the 
fault  is  not  in  the  ordinance,  but  in  the  power  of  custom,  and  in  the 
stupidity  and  carelessness  of  spectators,  of  parents,  of  ministers. 
It  teaches,  very  simply,  but  very  significantly,  th;it,  even  from  the 
womb,  children  are  the  subjects  of  pollution  ;  that  they  stand  in 
need of  purification  from  the  inherent  depravity  of  their  na- 
ture, in  order  to  their  entering  heaven." 

"  Whilst  infant  baptism  reminds  us  of  the  humbling  doctrine  of 
original  depravity,  it  brings  before  our  minds  a  truth  of  a  different 
kind, — eminently  cheering  and  encouraging, — namely,  that  little 
children  are  not  incapable  of  being  subjects  of  the  spiritual  king- 
dom of  Jesus  Christ,  and  participating  in  its  blessings. — I  need  not 
set  about  proving  this ;  because  their  capability  is  granted  by  bap- 
tists themselves." 

"  I  am  strongly  inclined  to  agree  with  those,  who  regard  the 
children  of  believers  in  the  light  of  disciples.  If  their  parents  do 
their  duty,  they  surely  are  such.  It  is  quite  impossible  for  us  to 
say,  how  soon  the  Holy  Spirit  may  begin  his  secret  operations  in 
the  soul  of  a  child,  under  spiritual  training,  and  the  subject  of  be- 
lieving prayer.     And  until  the  principles  which  are  instilled  intt 


APPENDIX  D.  211 

the  child's  mind  by  early  tuition,  recommended  by  a  godly  exam- 
pie,  and  impressed  by  affectionate  and  faithful  admonition,  are  ei- 
ther avowedly  rejected,  or  are  shown  to  be  professed  without  influ- 
ence on  the  heart  and  life, — how  can  we  be  entitled  to  say,  that  they 

are  hot  disciples  ?    They  are  learners." Wardlaw's  Diss.  pp.  179, 

180, 181,  182, 184. 


D. 

"  The  ordinance  is  inseparably  connected,  and  all  Christian  pa- 
rents ought  so  to  regard  it,  with  the  incumbent  duty  of  '  bringing 
up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.'  If 
this  connexion  is  lost  sight  of, — if  it  is  not  contemplated  at  the 
time,  and  is  practically  disregarded  afterwards,  the  ordinance  be- 
comes nothing  better  than  a  useless  ceremony,  and  an  idle  and 
profane  mockery  of  its  Divine  author. — Much  ha,s  been  said,  and 
said  sometimes  very  loosely,  by  psedobaptists,  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  infants,  and  of  the  impropriety  of  abridging  their  priv- 
ileges, and  abstracting  their  rights,  in  refusing  them  baptism. 
But  I  would  have  it  seriously  considered,  that  the  right  and  the 
privilege  are  not  worth  the  contending  for.  unless  the  ordinance  be 
connected  with  parental  instruction,  discipline,  and  prayer.  It  is 
evident,  that  the  pouring  of  a  little  water  on  an  infant's  face,  can, 
in  itself,  do  it  no  good ;  and  as  little  would  the  immersion  of  its 
whole  body.  The  mere  external  recognition  of  its  connexion  with 
the  Christian  community,  can  be  of  no  benefit,  except  as  associat- 
ed with  subsequent  training,  for  the  performance  of  the  duties,  and 
the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings,  of  that  community.  The  profit  to 
the  child  must  be  through  the  medium  of  the  parent :  and  it  has 
long  appeared  to  me,  that  it  is  to  the  parent,  rather  than  to  the 
child,  that  infant  baptism  is,  in  the  first  instance,  to  be  reckoned  a 
privilege.  It  is  an  ordinance,  in  which  there  is  brought  before  the 
minds  of  pious  parents,  a  pleasing  and  animating  recognition  of 
the  covenant  promises  of  God  to  them  and  their  offspring,  which 
form  so  great  an  encouragement  to  them  in  the  discharge  of  duty, 
and  in  looking,  by  prayer,  for  the  divine  blessing  upon  the  objects 
of  their  tender  love.  That  multitudes  who  have  their  children 
baptized  never  think  of  the  ordinance  in  any  such  light,  and  are 


312  APPENDIX  D. 

quite  regardless  of  the  obligations  which,  I  will  not  say,  it  imposes, 
but  which  it  implies,  and  brings  to  mind, — is  a  melancholy  truth. 
And  I  would  earnestly  admonish  those  parents,  of  the  guilt  they 
are  contracting,  by  their  solemn  mockery  of  heaven,  in  the  care- 
less profanation  of  a  Divine  institution.  The  abuse  is  awfully  ex- 
tensive." 

"  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  parents  may  have  a  sufficiently  strong 
feeling  of  their  duty  to  their  children,  and  may  fulfil  that  duty 
equally  well  with  others,  although  they  do  not  see  the  scripture 
authority  for  their  baptism.  I  do  not  deny,  that  a  baptist  may  be 
exemplary  in  the  christian  tuition  of  his  family,  and  that  many  a 
pa3dobaptist  may  be  very  much  the  contrary.  But  this  is  not  the 
question.  I  can  conceive  of  a  Christian,  from  certain  conscientious 
but  unscriptural  and  groundless  scruples,  living  for  successive 
years  in  the  neglect  of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  yet, 
to  all. appearance,  influenced  as  much  as  others,  in  his  general 
character,  by  the  habitual  remembrance  of  his  Redeemer.  We 
should  never  infer  from  such  a  case,  that  the  ordinance  was  use- 
less. Neither  ought  we  in  the  other.  If  God  has  given  promises 
to  his  people  and  their  seed,  promises  fitted  to  stimulate  believing 
parents  to  the  fulfilment  of  their  sacred  trust,  and  has  instituted  an 
ordinance  in  which  these  promises  are  recognized  and  pledged  to 
them,  it  does  not  become  us  to  neglect  the  gracious  and  pleasing 
rite,  on  the  ground  that  we  can  keep  the  promises  sufficiently  well 
in  mind  without  it.  It  is  kind  in  that  God  who  :  knoweth  our 
frame,'  not  only  to  give  us  his  word,  but  to  embody,  as  it  were, 
that  word  to  our  senses,  to  confirm  it  to  our  faith,  and  to  impress 
it  upon  our  memories  and  hearts,  by  significant  outward  institu- 
tions. '  Quam  enim  suave  piis  animis,'  says  Calvin  very  beauti- 
fully, '  non  verbo  tantum,  sed  oculari  etiam  spectaculo,  certiores 
fieri,  tail  turn  se  gratia?  apud  patrem  coelestem  obtinere,  ut  posteri- 
tas  sua  illi  curie  sit.'  '  How  pleasing  to  the  minds  of  the  godly, 
not  merely  to  have  a  verbal  assurance,  but  to  have  it  certified  to 
them,  by  visible  signs,  that  the  grace  of  their  heavenly  Father  is 
so  great,  as  to  extend,  not  to  themselves  only,  but  to  their  off- 
spring !'  " 

The  following  is  addressed  to  Parents. — "  Christian  parents, 
— the  charge  intrusted  to  you  is  one,  the  most  momentous 
end  interesting  that  can  be  imagined  by  the  human  mind.  It 
is  the   charge  of  immortal   souls.     Every  child,  when  born   in* 


APPENDIX  D.  213 

to  the  world,  enters  upon  an  existence  that  is  never  to  ter- 
minate, upon  a  short  and  precarious  life  on  earth,  which  must 
be  succeeded  by  eternal  blessedness,  or  eternal  woe.  How 
solemn  the  consideration  ! — And  with  regard  to  your  own  chil- 
dren, to  you  is  committed  the  sacred  trust,  of  imparting  to  them 
that  knowledge,  which,  through  the  blessing  of  God,  shall  make 
them  '  wise  unto  salvation.'  These  lights,  lighted  for  eternity,  it 
is  yours  to  feed  with  holy  oil  from  the  sanctuary  of  God,  that  they 
may  burn,  with  pure  and  lovely  radiance,  before  the  throne  above. 
These  never-dying  plants,  it  is  yours  to  rear  and  to  cherish,  bring- 
ing down  upon  them,  by  your  prayers,  the  dews  and  rains  of  heaven, 
that  so  they  may  flourish  and  bear  fruit  for  ever,  in  the  paradise 
of  God." — "  O  forget  not  the  sacred  obligation.  Let  it  be  engraven 
on  your  hearts, '  as  with  a  pen  of  iron  and  the  point  of  a  diamond.' 
You  love  your  children.  They  are  dear  to  you  as  the  apple  of 
your  eye, — precious  as  your  own  souls.  What  is  there  that  you 
would  not  part  with,  to  secure  their  well-being?  And  are  not 
their  eternal  interests  first  in  your  thoughts,  and  first  in  your  de- 
sires for  them  ?  If  you  feel  as  christians,  they  are, — they  must  be. 
Let  them,  then,  be  first  in  your  prayers,  and  first  in  your  exertions. 
Seek  to  impress  early  on  their  hearts  a  sense  of  the  unspeakable 
importance  of  eternal  things.  Teach  them  the  knowledge  and 
fear  of  the  Lord,  when  you  sit  in  the  house,  and  when  you  walk 
by  the  way ;  never  with  the  repulsive  austerity  of  a  master,  but 
with  all  the  engaging  tenderness  of  parental  love.  Let  no  pros- 
pect of  temporal  advantage  induce  you,  to  expose  their  souls  to  un- 
necessary hazards,  from  the  snares  and  temptations  of  a  deceitful 
world.  Let  no  corporeal  attractions,  and  no  mental  accomplish- 
ments, however  gratifying  they  may  lawfully  be,  appropriate  that 
peculiar  joy,  which,  in  the  hearts  of  godly  parents,  must  ever  be 
reserved  for  '  seeing  their  children  walking  in  truth.' — Set  your 
hearts,  with  intense  and  unquenchable  desire,  on  the  salvation  of 
your  offspring.  Ask  it  of  God  with  the  fervour  and  importunity 
of  faith.  Show  the  sincerity  of  your  prayers,  by  unwearied  atten- 
tion to  the  use  of  necessary  means  : — and  I  doubt  not,  you  will  have 
the  blessedness  of  seeing,  amongst  your  offspring,  a  seed  arise  to 
serve  the  Lord. 

"  If  in  any  case  there  should  be  an   apparent  failure  of  the 
blessing,  there  is  a  call  to  much  searching  of  heart,  and  close  in- 

10 


214  APPENDIX  E. 

Vestigation  of  the  whole  process  of  training.  It  is  surely  safer,  to 
question  our  own  fidelity  to  duty,  than  God's  fidelity  to  promise. 
— Are  you  sure,  that  the  salvation  of  your  children  has  engaged 
your  desires,  with  a  fervour  and  a  constancy  proportioned  to  its 
infinite  importance  ? — Have  you  pursued  this  object  with  sufficient 
seriousness,  as  '  the  one  thing  needful'  to  your  parental  happi- 
ness ? — While  you  have  been  teaching  the  truths  of  God,  have  you 
been  careful  to  '  walk  before  your  house  in  a  perfect  way,'  exem- 
plifying, in  your  whole  deportment,  their  holy,  heavenly  influ- 
ence ? — Have  you,  in  no  measure,  been  guilty  of  sacrificing  the 
souls  of  your  children  to  their  temporal  interests  ? — Have  your  ef- 
forts, and  your  prayers  been  engaged  about  this  object,  with  any 
thing  like  a  proportion  to  its  unutterable  magnitude  ? — Have  your 
exertions  been  believing  exertions, — your  prayers,  the  prayers  of 
faith  ? — or  has  there  not  been,  in  both,  a  lamentable  deficiency  of 
firm,  and  simple-hearted,  and  practical  confidence  in  God? 

"  May  the  '  God  of  the  families  of  Israel'  impress,  more  deep- 
ly than  ever,  upon  your  minds,  the  duty  enjoined  upon  you  !  Let 
the  baptism  of  your  own  children,  and  every  baptism  you  are  call- 
ed to  witness,  remind  you  of  your  obligations,  and  bring  you  to 
your  knees,  with  tears  of  conscious  short-coming,  and  of  earnest 
entreaty  for  grace  to  fulfil  them  !" 


E. 

Since  I  revised  the  last  Lecture  and  completed  the  preparation 
of  it  for  the  press  in  its  present  form,  Professor  Stuart  has  favored 
me  with  his  notes  on  Rom.  vi,  just  written  in  his  course  of  Exe- 
getical  Lectures,  and  has  given  me  liberty  to  make  the  following 
extracts. 

"  Rom.  6:  3.  ipanTio&tyisv  tig  tov  Xqiotov  ^Iijoovv,  we  were 
baptized  into  Christ  Jesus.  The  sense  of  this  depends  on  the 
meaning  of  the  formula,  ^ajiri^eiv  dg  iiva,  or  ^artrittiv  tig  ro  oro- 
fiot,  mug,  to  baptize  into  any  one,  or  into  the  name  of  any  one.  In 
reward  to  panTittiv  tig  to  ovoua,  the  noun  moua  is,  no  doubt,  to  be 
regarded  as  expletive  ;  as  C  v  in  Hebrew  often  is.  So  Matt.  28:  19, 
baptized  tig  to  ovopcc  tov  rtaTQog,  y.al  tov  vtov,  xcu  tou  /irei^ctTog 
ayiov,   is  the  same  as  baptized  tig  tov  tzcltqoi,  xal  tov  vlbv,   xal 


APPENDIX  E.  215 

to  7Tf tviia  ayior.     Accordingly  we  find  oroua  omitted  in  our  text 
(Rom.  C:  3),  as  also  in  1  Cor.  10:  2.  1:  13. 

But  the  sense  of  the  whole  formula,  it  is  more  difficult  to  as- 
certain. Most  Commentators,  (after  Vitringa,  Obs.  Sac.  III.  22), 
explain  tig  as  meaning,  into  the  acknowledgement  of ;  with  an  im- 
plication of  affiance,  subjection,  discipleship.  But  the  formula, 
1  Cor.  12:  13,  TtavTeg  tig  iv  acouu  l^ujix'ia&^utv,  seems  to  disagree 
with  such  an  explanation.  Here  tig  plainly  means  participation  ; 
i.  e.  by  baptism  we  come  to  belong  to  one  body,  to  participate  in 
one  body,  to  be  members  of  one  body.  In  like  manner,  we  may 
say,  by  baptism  we  come  to  belong,  (in  a  special  and  peculiar 
sense,  no  doubt),  to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  to  Moses, 
1  Cor.  10:  12;  to  Paul,  1  Cor.  1:  13.  In  this  way  all  the  passages 
may  be  construed  alike,  and  the  sense  in  all  will  be  good.  The 
idea  is,  for  substance,  that  by  baptism  we  become  consecrated  to 
any  person  or  thing,  appropriated  (as  it  were)  to  any  person  or 
thing,  so  as  to  belong  to  him,  or  to  it,  in  a  manner  peculiar,  and 
involving  special  duties  and  obligations. 

This  sense  is  just  such  an  one  as  fits  the  passage  under  ex- 
amination. As  many  of  us  as  have  become  devoted  to  Christ  by 
baptism,  or,  as  have  been  consecrated  to  Christ,  and  laid  under  pe- 
culiar obligations,  or  have  taken  upon  us  a  peculiar  relation  to  him. 

Elg  rbv  &avctTov  aihov  i^arcrio&r^isv,  we  have  become  partakers 
by  baptism  of  his  death,  i.  e.  we  have  come  under  a  special  relation 
to  his  death;  we  have  engaged  to  die  unto  sin,  as  he  died  for  it. 
Being  baptized  into  his  death  is  therefore  an  internal,  moral,  spirit- 
ual transaction  in  itself ;  of  which  the  external  rite  of  baptism  is 
only  a  symbol.  The  relation,  symbolized  by  baptism,  is  in  its  own 
nature  spiritual.  Participation  in  the  death  of  Christ  is,  and  must 
be,  of  a  moral  or  spiritual  nature  only. 

"  (v.  4)  ZuvtTutf^utr  ovr  /..  r.  7..  We  have  been  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  his  death  ;  i.  e.  by  being  baptized  into  his  death,  ice 
are  buried,  as  he  icas,  awtru^utr.  Here  aw  means  the  same  as 
mare,  like  him,  in  like  manner  with  him  ;  compare  v.  6.  8:  17.  Col. 
3:  1.  where  any  other  sense  of  av  v  is  out  of  the  question  ;  2  Tim. 
2:  11,  to  which  the  same  remark  will  apply. 

Most  commentators  have  assumed  here,  that  ovyrratp^fuv  has  a 
necessary  reference  to  the  mode  of  literal  baptism,  which,  they 
say,  was  by  immersion,  and  this,  they  think,  affords  ground  for  the 
employment  of  the  image  used  by  the  Apostle,  because  immersion 


216  APPENDIX  E. 

(under  waterj  may  be  compared  to  burial  (under  the  earth.)  It 
may  be  difficult,  perhaps,  to  procure  a  patient  re-hearing  of  this 
subject,  so  long  regarded  by  some  as  being  out  of  fair  dispute. 
Nevertheless,  as  my  own  conviction,  after  protracted  and  repeat- 
ed examinations,  has  not  been  consentaneous  with  that  of  com- 
mentators in  general,  I  will  briefly  state  my  reasons  for  it. 

The  first,  and  (as  it  seems  to  me,)  the  conclusive  one,  is,  that 
in  the  verse  before  us,  there  is  a  plain  antithesis ;  one  so  plain, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  overlook  it.  Now  then,  if  ovvsruyrjiev  is  to 
be  literally  interpreted,  where  is  the  corresponding  literal  idea  in 
the  opposite  part  of  the  antithesis  ?  Most  plainly  there  is  none. 
The  resurrection  there  spoken  of,  is  a  moral,  spiritual  one  ;  moral 
and  spiritual  only.  For  it  is  one  which  Christians,  in  the  present 
life,  have  air eady  actually  experienced ;  as  maybe  fully  seen  by 
comparing  v.  5  below.  It  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  com- 
parison, and  from  v.  5,  that  after  {iiug  in  v.  4,  iye^tjTsg  is  im- 
plied. 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  passage  in  Col.  2:  11,  (which  is  altogeth- 
er parallel  with  the  verse  under  examination,  and  has  very  often 
been  referred  to  by  polemic  writers  on  the  subject  of  baptism)  we 
shall  there  find  more  conclusive  reason  still,  to  argue  as  above  re- 
specting the  nature  of  the  antithesis  presented.  '  We  have  been 
buried  with  him  (Christ)  by  baptism.'  What  now  is  the  opposite 
of  this  ?  What  is  the  kind  of  resurrection  from  this  grave  in  which 
Christians  have  been  buried  ?  The  Apostle  tells  us ;  '  we  have 
risen  with  him  (Christ)  by  faith  wrought  by  the  power  of  God, 
(rfjg  htoytiag  rov  -frsov),  who  raised  him  (Christ)  from  the  dead.' 
Here  is  a  resurrection  by  faith,  i.  e.  a  sjriritual,  moral  one.  Now 
if  one  part  of  the  antithesis  is  to  be  construed  in  a  manner  entirely 
moral,  or  spiritual,  I  am  obliged,  by  the  laws  of  interpretation,  to 
construe  the  other  part  in  the  same  manner.  To  understand  ovv- 
truyr^uv,  then,  as  of  a  literal  burial  under  water,  is  to  understand 
it  in  a  manner  which  the  laws  of  exegesis  absolutely  forbid.     But, 

Secondly.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  word  ovvetuqitj- 
fttv  here,  is  entirely  equivalent  to  antduvofier.  It  is  adopted  for  the 
sake  of  rendering  more  striking  the  image  of  a  resurrection, 
which  the  Apostle  employs  in  the  other  part  of  the  antithesis.  A 
resurrection  from  the  grave,  is  a  common  phrase,  when  speaking  of 
a  resurrection ;    see  John  5:  28,  29.    Dan.  12:2.     In  accordanco 


APPENDIX  E.  217 

with  this  statement,  the  context  does  most  plainly  speak,  in  both 
the  places  referred  to.  In  respect  to  Rom.  6:  4,  the  Apostle  goes 
on,  in  the  very  next  verse,  (as  is  very  usual  with  him),  to  present 
the  same  idea,  contained  in  v.  4,  in  a  different  costume.  V.  5, 
(which  is  evidently  a  mere  explanation  of  v.  4),  says,  '  if  we  have 
been  like  Christ,  (ov^(pvrot,  of  the  same  kind  with  him),  in  his 
death,  then  shall  we  be  in  his  resurrection.'  The  same  is  repeat- 
ed v.  8,  ans&uvouev — avttlaousv  ;  and  the  whole  is  admirably  ex- 
plained in  v.  11,  '  So  likewise  reckon  ye  yourselves  to  be  dead  in- 
deed unto  sin,  but  alive  tinto  God.' 

Exactly  in  the  same  manner,  .has  the  Apostle  gone  on  to  ex- 
plain avvratpivreg  in  Col.  2:  12.  In  v.  13  he  adds  ;  'You  rexnovg 
in  your  offences  ....  avvatiaoTroirjasv,  has  he  (God)  made  alive 
with  him  (ChristJ,  having  forgiven  you  all  your  offences.'  There 
can  be  no  real  ground,  therefore,  to  question  that  avvrucpw,  in  both 
cases,  means  neither  more  nor  less  than  a7io9uroutv,  rty.Qog,  etc. 
The  epexegesis,  added  in  both  cases,  makes  this  quite  plain. 

The  only  reason,  then,  which  I  can  find,  why  owr^w  is  pre- 
ferred in  Rom.  6:  4,  and  Col.  2: 12,  is,  as  has  been  suggested  above, 
that  the  language  may  be  a  fuller  antithesis  to  the  word  resurrec- 
tion, which  is  employed  in  the  other  part  of  the  comparison. 

Thirdly.  I  have  another  difficulty  in  respect  to  the  exegesis 
which  has  been  generally  given  to  avvetSapt^isv  ;  namely ;  that 
the  image  of  immersion,  baptism,  is  nowhere  else  in  Scripture  em- 
ployed as  the  symbol  of  burial  in  the  grave.  Nor  can  I  think  it  is 
a  very  natural  symbol  of  burial.  The  obvious  import  of  icashing 
zcith  water  is,  that  it  is  symbolical  of  purity,  cleansing,  purification. 
But  how  will  this  compare  with  burying  in  the  grave,  the  place  of 
corruption,  and  loathsomeness  and  destruction  f  Can  two  things  be 
more  unlike  ? 

For  these  reasons,  I  feel  compelled  to  dissent  from  the  opinion 
of  many  able  and  excellent  Commentators  respecting  the  passage 
before  us,  and  to  believe  that  the  Apostle  had  only  a  moral  or  spir- 
itual burying  in  view,  as  he  had  a  moral  or  spiritual  (not  a  physical) 
resurrection  in  view,  in  the  corresponding  part  of  the  antithesis. 

Indeed,  what  else  but  a  moral  burying  can  be  meant,  when 

the  Apostle  says,  '  We  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism   into  his 

death  T     Is  this  physical  baptism,  or  moral  ?     And  although  the 

words,  into  his  death,  are  not  inserted  in  Col.  2:  12;    yet,  as  the 

19* 


218  APPENDIX  E. 

following  verse  there  shows,  they  are  evidently  implied.  In  fact,  it 
is  plain  that  reference  is  here  made  to  baptism,  only  because,  when 
the  rite  was  performed,  the  Christian  promised  to  renounce  sin  and 
to  mortify  all  his  evil  desires,  and  thus  '  to  die  unto  sin,  that  he 
might  live  unto  God.'  I  must  believe,  therefore,  that  there  is  no 
more  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism  here,  than  to  the  mode  of 
the  resurrection.  The  one  may  just  as  well  be  supposed  as  the 
other." 

To  show  the  striking  coincidence  of  different  writers,  who 
have  given  particular  attention  to  this  subject,  I  am  happy  to  add 
the  following  extracts  from  Wardlaw's  Dissertation. 

"  It  appears  to  me  very  evident,  that  the  emblematic  signifi- 
cance of  baptism  is  to  be  found  in  the  purifying  nature  of  the  ele- 
ment employed  in  it, — in  the  cleansing  virtue  of  tcater.  Almost  ev- 
ery instance  in  which  the  ordinance  is  spoken  of,  or  alluded  to, 
with  any  intimation  of  its  meaning,  might  be  adduced  in  proof  of 
this.  The  following  passages  are  but  a  specimen  of  many  :  Acts 
22:  16.  Ephes.5:  25,  20.  Tit.  3:  5." 

"  From  these  and  other  passages  it  appears,  that  baptism,  by 
the  emblem  of  the  cleansing  virtue  of  water,  denotes  the  removal 
of  sin,  in  its  guilt,  and  in  its  pollution.  Of  such  allusions,  indeed, 
the  scriptures  are  full.  And  surely,  that  view  which  is  most  fre- 
quently exhibited  to  our  attention,  and  which  both  on  the  subject 
of  justification  and  of  sanctification,  imparts,  if  I  may  so  speak,  a 
peculiar  figurative  complexion  to  the  current  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, I  am  warranted  to  consider  as  at  least  the  principal,  if  not 
even  the  exclusive  import  of  the  institution. 

"  But  according  to  the  views  of  our  baptist  brethren,  washing, 
or  cleansing,  so  far  from  being  the  exclusive,  is  not  even  the  prin- 
cipal, but  only  a  secondary  meaning  of  the  rite. — Whilst  the  gen- 
eral tenor  of  the  language  of  scripture,  as  well  as  a  number  of  par- 
ticular passages,  seems  to  place  its  symbolical  meaning  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  element  employed,  it  is  by  them  placed  principally,  and 
by  some  of  them  indeed,  as  would  appear  from  their  manner  of  ex- 
pressing themselves,  almost  solely,  in  the  mode  in  which  that  ele- 
ment is  used. 

"  The  passages  referred  to  by  them,  in  support  of  this  notion, 
are  the  two  following  :  Rom.  6:  3,  4.  '  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his 


APPENDIX  E.  219 

death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ; 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.'  Col.  2: 
12.  '  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with 
him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God  who  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead.' — In  these  passages,  our  brethren  conceive, 
there  is  an  obvious  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion. 
The  apostle  represents  this  ordinance,  to  use  the  language  of  Mr. 
Maclean,  in  his  Commission,  page  137,  as  '  exhibiting  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  together  with  the  Christian's 
communion  with,  and  conformity  to  him  therein.'  The  baptized 
person's  communion  with  Christ  in  his  death  and  burial,  is  repre- 
sented by  his  being  laid  under  the  water  ;  and  his  communion  with 
him  in  his  resurrection,  by  his  being  raised  out  of  it. 

"  Two  things  may  just  be  noticed  here,  before  proceeding  to 
the  explanation  of  the  passages.  The  first  is,  that  it  is  obviously 
incorrect,  to  speak  of  the  ordinance  as  '  exhibiting  the  death  of 
Christ,'  as  well  as  his  burial  and  resurrection  ;  for  whatever  re- 
semblance fancy  may  imagine  to  the  two  latter,  there  is  surely 
no  representation  of  the  former.  The  death  can  only  be  consider- 
ed as  implied  in  the  burial. — The  second  is,  (what  has  been  largely 
shown  by  others,*)  that  even  to  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  the  immersion  of  a  body  under  water,  and  its  emersion  from 
it,  bear  but  a  very  indistinct  and  remote  resemblance.  The  mind 
may  easily  indeed  habituate  itself  to  the  idea  of  likeness,  between 
being  let  down  under  earth  and  raised  out  of  it,  and  being  let  down 
under  water  and  raised  out  of  it.  But  where  is  the  likeness,  be- 
tween the  latter  of  these  and  the  carrying  of  a  body,  by  a  lateral 
door  into  a  cavern  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  and  that  body  reviving,  and 
coming  forth  by  the  same  door  ? — which  were  the  real  circumstan- 
ces of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  I  confess  this 
resemblance,  on  which  so  much  stress  is  laid  by  our  baptist  breth- 
ren, has  always  appeared  to  me  but  a  far-fetched  fancy 

Of  one  thing  I  must  express  my  firm  conviction,  namely,  that  any 
allusion  at  all  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  is  in  no  respect  necessary  to 
the  right  and  easy  understanding  of  the  passages  in  question. 
And  if  this  can  be  shown,  it  will  follow  of  course  that  they  form  but 
a  flimsy  foundation  for  the  superstructure,  of  sentiment  and  prac- 

*  See  particularly  Mr.  Ewing's  late  Essay. 


220  APPENDIX  E. 

tice,  that  has  been  reared  upon  them.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  oth- 
er paedobaptists  have  thought  differently,  have  admitted  an  allu- 
sion, and  endeavoured  to  explain  it  in  other  ways.  I  cannot  help 
that.  I  state  my  own  views,  and  wish  them  to  be  tried,  not  by 
comparison  with  those  of  others,  but  by  the  test  of  the  Bible.  It 
is  a  puuy  and  pitiful  way  of  carrying  on  a  controversy,  to  prowl 
about  amongst  different  writers  on  the  same  side  of  a  question,  for 
the  purpose  of  detecting,  and  setting  forth  in  contrasted  columns, 
every  little  discrepanc}^  between  them ;  with  the  view,  covert  or 
avowed,  of  drawing  the  reader  to  the  conclusion,  that  they  cannot 
be  right  who  so  differ  from  one  another." 

"  To  be  '  baptized  into  Christ'  is  to  be  baptized  into  the  faith  of 
him  as  the  Messiah  ; — into  the  faith  of  his  divine  mission,  charac- 
ter, and  work.  To  be  '  baptized  into  his  death'  is  to  be  baptized  in- 
to the  faith  of  his  death,  in  the  view  which  the  gospel  gives  of 
it,  as  the  death  of  a  surety  or  substitute,  making  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  those  for  whom  he  died. — Now,  by  being  thus  '  baptized 
into  his  death,'  says  the  apostle,  we  are  '  buried  tcith  him.'1  The 
simple  meaning  of  this  expression  evidently  is,  that  by  being  bap- 
tized into  the  faith  of  his  death,  as  the  death  of  our  surety  and  sub- 
stitute, we  become  partakers  with  him  in  it.  When  the  apostle, 
pursuing  his  beautiful  illustration  of  the  spiritual  connection  of  be- 
lievers with  Christ,  and  the  practical  obligations  thence  arising, 
says  in  the  eighth  verse,  '  Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  be- 
lieve that  we  shall  also  live  with  him,'  he  uses  a  phrase  of  equiva- 
lent import  with  the  one  before  us.  To  be  dead  zcith  Christ,  and 
to  be  buried  with  Christ,  are  the  same  thing.  The  latter  of  the  two 
phrases  appears  to  be  used  in  the  fourth  verse,  chiefly  for  the  sake 
of  completing  the  Apostle's  figure.  As  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to 
Christ's  rising,  that  he  should  be  laid  in  the  grave  ;  so,  in  the  figure, 
it  is  necessary  that  we  should  be  viewed  as  buried  with  him,  in  or- 
der to  our  rising  with  him  to  newness  of  life. 

"  The  simple  meaning  is  this : — Since,  in  our  being  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ,  we  were  baptized  into  his  death, — into  the  faith 
of  his  death  as  the  death  of  a  surety  ;  we  may  be  considered  as,  by 
faith,  partaking  with  him  in  his  death, — as  buried  irith  him  :  and 
that,  with  the  special  end  of  our  rising  with  him,  in  a  spiritual  re- 
semblance to  his  resurrection,  and  '  walking  in  newness  of  life.' 
Now  it  is  quite  obvious,  that  the  argument  of  the  apostle  lias  not 


APPENDIX  E.  221 

the  remotest  connection  with  the  mode  of  baptism.  There  is  not 
the  most  distant  occasion  for  the  supposition  of  any  such  allusion, 
in  order  to  render  the  passage  intelligible  ;  nor  does  the  allusion, 
when  supposed,  impart  to  it  any  addition  of  force  or  propriety. 
The  meaning  does  not,  in  the  least  degree,  depend  on  the  manner 
of  performing  the  ceremony  :  it  turns  entirely  on  its  being  baptism 
into  Christ's  death.  Provided  it  was  this,  it  makes  not  the  smallest 
difference  to  the  Apostle's  statement,  or  argument,  or  conclusion, 
whether  we  suppose  it  to  have  been  by  immersion,  by  pouring,  or 
by  sprinkling. 

"  The  same  observations  apply,  with  at  least  equal,  if  not 
greater  force,  to  the  parallel  passage — Col.  2:  12.  Believers  are 
there  said  to  be  '  risen  as  well  as  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism.' — 
They  were  not  baptized  into  the  faith  of  Christ's  death  alone,  as 
the  death  of  their  surety  ;  they  were  baptized  also  into  the  faith  of 
his  resurrection,  as  the  resurrection  of  their  surety.  And  as,  by 
the  former,  they  became,  in  virtue  of  their  connection  with  him  as 
a  surety,  partakers  with  him  in  his  death  ;  so,  by  the  latter,  they 
became,  in  the  same  way,  partakers  with  him  also  in  his  resurrec- 
tion. Being  baptized  into  the  faith  of  both,  they  had,  by  faith, 
fellowship  or  union  with  him  in  both.  How  is  it,  accordingly,  that 
they  are  said  to  be  '  risen  with  him  ?'  It  is  '  through  the  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God  who  raised  him  from  the  dead  ;'  that  is,  through 
the  faith  of  his  resurrection,  effected  by  the  operation,  or  mighty 
power,  of  God. — Their  being  '  risen  with  him  in  baptism'  does  not, 
therefore,  refer  to  any  emblematic  representation  of  a  resurrection 
in  the  mode  of  the  ordinance  ;  but  to  their  being  one  with  him  in 
his  resurrection,  through  faith  in  him  as  the  surety  of  sinners. 
And  in  this  view  they  might,  with  perfect  propriety,  be  said  to 
be  risen  with  him  in  baptism,  whatever  was  the  mode  of  its  admin- 
istration, provided  only  it  was  baptism  into  the  faith  of  his  resurrec- 
tion. 

"  It  has,  indeed,  been  alleged,  that,  in  whatever  sense  believ- 
ers are  said  to  be  buried  and  risen  with  Christ,  they  could  not  be 
represented  as  so  buried  and  risen  in  baptism,  unless  there  were, 
in  that  ordinance,  some  representation  of  that  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion.— I  observe  in  reply  :  1.  Although  the  expression  in  Col.  2: 
12,  is  '  buried  with  him  in  baptism1  (F.v  tw  ^artriafiari  ,-)  yet  in 
Horn.  C:  4,  it  is  different — '  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  his 


222  APPENDIX  E. 

f  death/  (Jia  rov  (ianriauaTog  tig  rbv  d-avatov  avrov  ;)  which  does 
not  at  all  imply  any  such  similitude  in  the  ordinance,  but  directs 
the  attention  to  that  into  which  they  tcere  baptized  ;  which,  indeed, 
as  I  have  noticed,  is  the  point  on  which  the  whole  reasoning  turns. 
— 2.  Although  it  was,  strictly  speaking,  in  believing,  that  these  con- 
verts became  partakers  with  Christ  in  his  death  and  resurrection ; 
yet  it  is  not  unusual  to  speak  of  things  as  taking  place  in  baptism 
which  properly  took  place  by  faith,  because  baptism  was  the  first 
public  declaration  of  the  faith  of  the  converts,  and  of  their  belong- 
ing to  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  on  the  same  principle,  that  they 
are  spoken  of  as  in  baptism  l  washing  away  their  sins,'  and  'put- 
ting on  Christ.' — 3.  In  Rom.  vi.,  the  language  of  the  whole  pas- 
sage is  figurative.  The  same  principle  of  interpretation,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  expression  '  buried  with  Christ'  is  explained  as 
referring  to  the  representation  of  interment  by  the  immersion  of 
the  body  under  water,  should  lead  us  also  to  understand  the  phrase 
which  immediately  follows,  'planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death"  as  referring  to  an  emblematic  representation  of  planting — 
which  accordingly  some  have  stretched  their  fancy  to  make  out ; 
or  the  phrase  '  crucified  with  him,'  to  some  similar  exhibition  of 
crucifixion. 

"  Being  myself  thoroughly  convinced,  that  the  significance 
and  appropriateness  of  the  rite  arose  from  the  cleansing  nature  of 
the  element  employed,  and  not  from  the  mode  of  its  application,  I 
am  disposed  to  consider  the  mode  as  of  comparatively  inferior  im- 
portance. It  is  in  the  application  of  water,  as  the  emblem  of  the 
purifying  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  that  the  ordinance  pro- 
perly consists." 


